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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The status of the parties is the owner of the building of this case, which is composed of U.C. 23 U.V as a joint group, and is the owner of the building of this case, and S is the person who performs the duties of the chairperson, who is the representative of the plaintiff until December 2014, and Defendant B is the person appointed as the chairperson under the same circumstances as seen subsequent to the ordinary general meeting of the plaintiff held on December 14, 2014.

The Defendants were those who leased part of the instant building from the Plaintiff, and concluded a new lease agreement with Defendant B, representing the Plaintiff on June 20, 2016, as shown in attached Table 2, on the part of the instant building.

On December 14, 2014, the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders held by the Plaintiff on December 14, 2014, and Defendant B expressed the Plaintiff’s intention of withdrawal as the candidate for the president at the general meeting of shareholders held on December 14, 2014.

However, as the plaintiff's opinion was presented by some members who cannot be a candidate again for the president in accordance with the "four-year Central Election System" prescribed by the rules of the plaintiff's Association, the Speaker pro tempore is not entitled to leave to S.

Along with the foregoing, the lower court declared that “The status of candidates is not recognized since at least 2/3 of the members appears to have agreed to be stuffed by gambling,” and declared that “The status of candidates is not recognized.”

Accordingly, S left the meeting place of the above general meeting with its members and 28 members who were in the meeting place at the time of the next resolution to select Defendant B as chairperson of the committee (hereinafter “the resolution of this case”).

The former president S et al. of the instant resolution filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution (Seoul District Court High Court 2017Gahap73542).

On August 10, 2018, the first instance court accepted this part of the claim of S, etc. on the ground that “this case’s resolution is null and void due to a serious defect in the procedure, and it cannot be deemed that it was legally ratified thereafter.”

As to the above judgment, the defendant B shall be the supplementary intervenor.