The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The plaintiff is a clan consisting of descendants who are 24 years of age in the DC's time E and the descendants who are the descendants of the DC.

B. The registration conversion was completed on September 17, 1974 with respect to the instant land (the 6 parts of the 2nd G forest in Chang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the 7,807th October 22, 1974, and the land category was changed to orchard on March 14, 1988) and the registration conversion was completed on September 17, 1974 under H’s name on March 1, 1971. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 1, 1971 under H’s name.

C. Following I’s death, his spouse J completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 8, 1980 as to the 3/16 portion of the instant land, as to the 3/16 share of K, 3/16 share of K, i.e., remaining children, L, M, N,O, P, and 2/16 share of each 2/16 share.

K on March 14, 1988, with respect to each share in the name of J, L, M, N,O, and P from the land of this case, K completed a share transfer registration on December 30, 1987.

E. K died on April 5, 2017. On June 30, 2017, the Defendant, who is his spouse, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance due to a consultation and division as to the instant land.

F. H, I, and K are all the members of the Plaintiff’s clan.

[Grounds for Recognition] The judgment as to facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 18, and 19, the whole pleadings, and the purport of the main defense

A. The gist of the claim is that the plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was registered in succession with H, I, and K, and that the defendant, who is the heir of K, sought implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the termination of title trust with respect to the land of this case, the defendant did not specify whether the plaintiff is "Ampa clan" or " Quapa clan", and the resolution of the clan general meeting that decided to file the lawsuit of this case was made by the clan general meeting held without the notification of convening a clan against the adult female among the members of the clan, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, the lawsuit of this case

B. Preservation of the relevant legal doctrine and collective ownership.