1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's term of office expired on December 2014, and thereafter, the general assembly of April 26, 2015, which elected C as the representative of the plaintiff clan, held without notice for convening a general assembly of most of the members of the above general assembly, was null and void. Thus, the lawsuit of this case brought by C as the representative of the plaintiff clan, which is brought by C as the representative of the plaintiff clan, is illegal as a lawsuit brought by a non-representative of the plaintiff clan or brought it without going through the general assembly of the clan, and it

B. In filing a lawsuit concerning property jointly owned by a non-corporate association, it shall undergo a resolution of a general members' meeting unless there are special circumstances such as otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation. Thus, the lawsuit filed by the non-corporate association in its name without a resolution of such general members' meeting is unlawful as it lacks the requirements for the lawsuit

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da97044 Decided July 28, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da97044, Jul. 28, 201). A clan general meeting shall determine the scope of members of the clan subject to notification for convening a clan and, barring special circumstances, provide each person with an opportunity to participate in meetings, discussions, and resolutions by individually notifying all members of the clan who are clearly residing in Korea and their whereabouts are possible to be notified. There is no resolution of the clan general meeting held without a notification for convening a clan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da12825, Sept. 13, 2012). There is no defect in convening a clan general meeting that cannot be recognized as effective if it is ratified by the lawfully convened clan general meeting after the resolution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da5363, Jun. 16, 1995); the term of office of the Plaintiff No. 7 and No. 215