1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The Defendants are the property inherited from the network B.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the assertion is that the deceased clan (hereinafter “the deceased”) embezzled the money of the Plaintiff clan, and the Plaintiff clan sought the return of the embezzlement money against the Defendants, the deceased’s heir, by the instant lawsuit.

As to this, the defendants did not file a lawsuit of this case through legitimate convening and resolution procedures of the general meeting of the plaintiff clan, and later asserted that it is unlawful because it does not have legitimate ratification.

B. Determination 1) In order for the Plaintiff to file the instant lawsuit, the rules of the Plaintiff clan (established on May 10, 1980 and enforced at the time of the institution of the instant case) are the rules.

hereinafter referred to as “instant clan Regulations”

) The fact that the resolution of the general meeting should be made pursuant to Article 8(6) of the instant clan, Article 8(5) of the instant clan provides that “a resolution of the general meeting shall be made by the attendance of at least 2/3 of the members and the majority shall be approved by the attendance of the members, and the quorum for the attendance and resolution of the general meeting does not conflict among the parties. However, according to the evidence No. 7, it is recognized that the number of members of the Plaintiff clan present at the general meeting on January 8, 2011 for the resolution of the instant lawsuit was only 12 of the members of the Plaintiff clan for the resolution of the instant lawsuit, and unlike the case

There is no evidence to prove that the resolution was made by the plaintiff's clan. Even according to the plaintiff's argument, 94 members are all the members of the clan as of July 7, 2016, and the number of the members of the clan was not much different even at the time of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, it is clear that 2/3 of the members present at the general meeting of the above clan did not appear. 2) Meanwhile, the resolution of the general meeting held unlawfully by the clan was not valid, but even if the litigation was conducted without a legitimate resolution of the clan, it becomes retroactively effective when the clan ratified the litigation by legitimate resolution.