감사당선인결정무효확인
1. At the representative meeting of the representative National Assembly of February 26, 2015 of the defendant, the decision that J and K made the auditor as the elected person is invalid.
2.
1. The following facts may be found in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6 and the purport of all pleadings:
The defendant association is a corporation established with the members of the private taxi transportation business for the purpose of promoting the sound development and common interest of the private taxi transportation business, and the plaintiffs are the representatives of the defendant association.
B. On February 26, 2015, the Defendant Union decided to hold a regular general meeting of delegates and to elect two auditors of the Union. Members J, L, M, and K registered as candidates for membership of the Defendant Union.
Of the above 14:00 General Meeting of Representatives held on the same day, the representative N proposed one vote system for the election of auditors, and the plaintiff A and B opposed that it was a voting method in violation of the regulations on the election management of unions.
In order to review the proposal at the meeting of the board of directors of the defendant association, the above general meeting of delegates was set aside, and the board of directors of the defendant association, which was held immediately thereafter, is possible to elect one-person two votes for the appointment of auditors at the general meeting of delegates.
C. Since then, in accordance with the opinion of the above board of directors that it is possible to vote a single-person 2 vote system at the meeting of the representative general meeting, the remarks of the representatives, including the plaintiffs, were wrong about how to select one-person one-person one vote system and one-person 2 vote system for the election of auditors, and it was decided that the 20 representatives present vote with the consent of 11 of the 10 representatives present vote system.
In the end, the voting was carried out according to the method of one-person two votes, and 12 of the representatives present vote according to the method of two votes per person, and the remaining representatives refused the above voting method, and the plaintiffs, who are the remaining representatives, retired from the representative general meeting.
As a result of voting, the candidates 12 votes, L candidates 1 votes, and K candidates 11 votes.