A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs were entitled to refuse to call an extraordinary general meeting by the defendant, and thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to call an extraordinary general meeting on May 27, 2006 under the defendant's articles of incorporation.

) While convening a meeting, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs the cost of KRW 70,177,480 (i.e., the cost of KRW 5,500,500,130 for the cost of writing and sending notice of KRW 5,080,320 for personnel expenses of KRW 156,40 for the cost of KRW 41,50,500 for personnel expenses of KRW 5,69,130 for the cost of writing and sending notice of KRW 9,93,130 for the postal expenses of KRW 1,438,50 for the cost of taking a provisional measure for prohibiting the holding of special general meetings, which is KRW 7,00,00 for the cost of taking a provisional measure for prohibiting the holding of special general meetings.B. The Defendant’s assertion is

Article 24 (3) 5 of the Constitution provides that "a contract that becomes a partner's burden, other than the matters stipulated in the budget," and thus, the defendant can pay it to the plaintiff only when the general meeting of the defendant is passed by the defendant. Since the above contents of the resolution are not only the defendant's interest but also the approval of the competent authority, it cannot be paid unless

2. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The defendant was established on August 20, 2002 for the reconstruction project of C Apartment located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and was authorized to establish a reconstruction association on August 20, 2004 by the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the plaintiffs are its members.

B. On March 29, 2006, the Plaintiffs asserted that 354 of the Defendant’s members received a request for convening an extraordinary general meeting for the resolution of the agenda, such as the dismissal of the president and executive officers of the partnership, from among the Defendant’s members, and requested the convening of an extraordinary general meeting in writing with a copy of the above 354 letter of request attached, but the Defendant was legitimate from the Defendant.