Therefore, since only the defendant and the intervenor joining the defendant appealed to the appeal, the subject matter of the judgment by this court is limited to the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution made by the defendant with respect to each item of agenda indicated in the separate list of the attached table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 (hereinafter referred to as "each item of agenda of this case" in the case of all items of agenda Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 among the resolutions made at the general meeting of the Assembly of August 10, 2014.

2. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in the case where the “list of the agenda” in the 8th 12th st of the judgment of the court of the first instance is used as the “list of the agenda” in the 4th th th th th th th th th th

3. Whether consent of at least 2/3 of the members is necessary for a resolution on agenda items referred to in subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8;

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion pertains to the conclusion of the third amendment agreement by substantially amending the terms of the second amendment agreement, and the third amendment agreement constitutes the conclusion of the third amendment agreement, and the matters regarding “expenses borne by a cooperative”, “the timing and procedure for bearing the maintenance project cost”, and “matters to be included in the contract with the contractor” were substantially modified to the extent that the interests of the association members are significantly affected, compared with the previous management and disposition plan.

Therefore, with respect to each of the above agenda items, Article 20(3), 20(1)8, 12, and 15 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas.