1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff’s representative C.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s “determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion” as to the part of the judgment of the first instance that was emphasized or additionally claimed in the appellate trial, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) The gist of the assertion is that the lawsuit in this case is an act of preserving ownership as an exercise of the right to demand obstruction and removal based on ownership, and as a representative of the plaintiff, C is responsible for and authorized to preserve the property under the articles of incorporation. Thus, the provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of collective ownership are not applicable to the preservation of collective ownership. 2) Since the resolution of a general meeting under Article 276(1) of the Civil Act is adopted or the articles of incorporation is followed through the resolution of a general meeting under Article 276(1) of the Civil Act or the procedure under the articles of incorporation. Thus, even if an association which is not a juristic person files a lawsuit as an act of preserving jointly owned property, it is required to obtain a resolution of the general meeting or undergo the procedure under

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da112299, 112305, Feb. 13, 2014). The Plaintiff assumes that the instant lawsuit is an act of preserving the Plaintiff’s property upon a claim for the obstruction and removal of interference based on ownership. As recognized earlier, the Plaintiff, as a non-corporate group, is jointly owned by the members belonging to the Plaintiff, and the act of preserving the property ought to undergo a resolution of the general meeting or undergo the procedures prescribed by the articles of incorporation.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff had gone through such procedures, and the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

B. The summary of the allegation 1, such as modification of the articles of incorporation, is not recognized as identical to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and its substance differs from each other.