Representative Director Nonparty 1

Attorney Go-young et al., Counsel for the defendant

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Defendant was an organization organized with the aim of contributing to the development of public interest in our society by succeeding to and practicing the ideology of the 2/28 Daegu Democratic Campaign, which was held on February 5, 2013 (hereinafter “instant general assembly”) and passed a resolution to select Nonparty 1 as the joint principal of the 9th common assembly (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

B. The defendant's articles of incorporation relating to the instant case are as follows.

Article 5 (Types and Qualifications of Members) The defendant's members shall have regular members, student members and honorary members, and their qualifications shall be as follows:

1. A regular member: A member of the defendant's objective and approved by the board of directors, under Article 6 (Rights and Duties) shall have the following rights and duties:

1. Right to vote, to be elected, and to vote on, an officer (election and term of office of an officer);

1. One of the two co-chairpersons shall be an ex officio member of the Daegu Metropolitan City Mayor, and one person designated by the general meeting from among two co-chairpersons shall represent the defendant. A general meeting under Article 14 (Composition) shall be comprised of regular members;

Article 15 (Functions of General Meeting) Matters to be resolved at the General Meeting shall be as follows:

1. Election of executives and approval therefor, Article 16;

1.The Assembly shall consist of an ordinary session and an extraordinary session.

2. The ordinary general meeting shall be held once a year, and shall be held within two months after the end of each business year; and

4.The convening of the Assembly shall be notified in writing to its members seven days prior to the date on which the agenda, date, time and place are written.

Except as otherwise provided, a general meeting shall pass resolutions with the consent of a majority of the members present: Provided, That in cases of the numbers of votes of approval and disapproval, the joint chair shall be decided.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

In order for the defendant to hold the general meeting, the general meeting of this case was held in writing to regular members seven days prior to the date of the general meeting. The majority of regular members did not give such notice, and the defendant did not confirm the number of the defendant regular members present at the general meeting of this case even though the majority of regular members were present at the general meeting of this case, and the defendant did not proceed with his intention without confirming the number of the defendant regular members present at the general meeting of this case, and as a result, the non-party 1 and the plaintiff 1 recommended by the joint chairperson, and as a result, he did not reach the majority of the defendant regular members present at the general meeting of this case, the resolution of this case is null and void.

B. Defendant’s assertion

On January 25, 2013, the Defendant sent to regular members a notice of convening an ordinary general meeting indicating the agenda, date, time, and location of the ordinary general meeting. On January 29, 2013, the Defendant written out a notice of convening an ordinary general meeting on its website. On February 2, 2014, the instant general meeting was held through legitimate convocation procedure, and the instant resolution was conducted through legitimate convocation procedure. The instant resolution was made by Nonparty 1 and Plaintiff 1, who were the majority of the participating members except for the 7 members who agreed upon Plaintiff 1, as the result of holding an ordinary general meeting with Nonparty 1 and Plaintiff 1. Therefore, the instant resolution is lawful.

3. Determination

A. First, as to whether the general assembly of this case was held through legitimate convocation procedure, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's regular member was notified in writing to all the regular members in accordance with the articles of incorporation in relation to the holding of the general assembly of this case, and the testimony of witnesses and the whole purport of the arguments are as follows. The defendant sent a notice of convening the general assembly of this case to 418 on January 25, 2013, and the above notice of convening the general assembly of this case is recognized as having been stating the date, time, place, and agenda items of the 9th executive election. Thus, it is reasonable to see that the defendant notified in writing the regular members of convening the general assembly of this case in accordance with the articles of incorporation, and the testimony for the fixed number of witnesses against this is difficult to believe, and there is no counter-

B. Next, as to whether the resolution of this case satisfies the quorum, there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the facts that the majority of the members present at the general meeting of this case who are not the defendant's regular members; the defendant did not accurately confirm whether the number of the members present at the general meeting of this case; and that the defendant appointed the non-party 1 as the co-chairperson of the defendant; on the other hand, considering Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7; the testimony of the ballot-counting for witnesses; part of the testimony and arguments for the fixed number of witnesses; the general meeting of this case is composed of regular members; the majority of the members present at the general meeting of this case is 48; the defendant's regular members present at the general meeting of this case; the number of the members present at the general meeting of this case was recommended by the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 as the candidates for the defendant's joint principal; the majority of the members present at the general meeting of this case is not sufficient to recognize that the remaining members present at the general meeting of this case are the non-party 1.

C. As above, since the general assembly of this case took lawful convocation procedure, and the resolution of this case meets the quorum stipulated in the articles of incorporation of the defendant, the mere fact that the defendant did not register the notice for convening the general assembly of this case by ordinary mail or did not confirm the number of regular members who cast a large number of votes at the time of the resolution of this case cannot be deemed null and void. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the resolution of this case is null and void is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Choi Jong-hoon

Judges Kim Gun-chul

It is reasonable to view it.