당회결의무효확인
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
In the first instance court, the plaintiffs sought a confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the political party set forth in the attached Forms 1, 2, and 3 against the defendant. The first instance court dismissed the part of invalidity of the resolution of the party council set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 among them, and dismissed the lawsuit of the plaintiff B, C, E, F, G, and J seeking a confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the party council set forth in paragraph 3, and accepted the claims of the plaintiff H, I, L, A, M, M, N, P, P, Q, D, R, and K.
Accordingly, only the plaintiffs appealed against the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the party branch of paragraphs 1 and 2, but also withdrawn an appeal against the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the party branch of Paragraph 2 in the trial court. Thus, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the party branch of Paragraph 1.
Basic Facts
The defendant is a church belonging to the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Association of Religious Organizations located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U.
The defendant, including whether the planning committee is reappointed or not, has determined the recommended members as the office physician and the office physician, and has appointed the office physician and the office physician by the method of deciding whether to appoint the office physician and the office physician for the recommended members at the regular meeting.
The Plaintiffs were the Defendant’s members, and Plaintiff H, B, C, D, E, F, and G were the Defendant’s competence, and Plaintiff I, J, and K were the Defendant’s office.
(hereinafter) The above Plaintiffs were held on November 3, 2013 by the Defendant’s Planning Committee (hereinafter “Plaintiff H, etc.”). A resolution was made by the Planning Committee to exclude Plaintiff H, etc. from the recommendation of association companies, association companies, Plaintiff H, etc. among the existing association companies, association companies, and association companies (hereinafter “instant exclusion resolution”), and a resolution to recommend only the association companies, association companies, and association companies as association companies (hereinafter “instant recommendation resolution”).
On November 3, 2013, the Defendant’s regular meeting was held on November 14, 2013, and the recommendation following the instant recommendation was passed on a turnkey of 72 votes and 14 votes.
(hereinafter “instant party’s resolution” or “instant party’s resolution”).