2. The claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

A. Defendant B, on June 9, 2007, held a board of directors on the part of June 9, 2007, and was subject to registration conversion with 13,244 square meters of land E and 12,35 square meters of land owned by the Defendants, and was divided into H and became 889 square meters of land.

At the time each forest land was decided to be transferred to the plaintiff, the vice-chairperson of defendant B.

Afterwards, the Defendants agreed to distribute 90,239 square meters of land G G in the following city, in which there was a dispute over ownership, including the land stated in the purport of the claim on January 14, 2010, at the ratio of 61% of the defendant B and 39% of the defendant CJ.

Therefore, according to the agreement on January 14, 2010, Defendant CJ, the owner of the land stated in the purport of the claim, is obligated to transfer each of the above shares to Defendant B, and Defendant B, according to the resolution of the board of directors on June 9, 2007, to the Plaintiff according to the above shares.

B. On November 13, 2009, on the ground that the Defendants and the registered titleholder I deposited KRW 405,398,430 as the deposited money for the reason that the Defendants and the registered titleholder I were not the deposited money, and the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited money for Defendant B deposited KRW 405,39,276 of this Court. The right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited money for Defendant B was subject to a resolution of the board of directors on June 9, 2007, pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors on June 9, 2007.

However, since Defendant B voluntarily transferred the right to claim the payment of the above deposit to Defendant CFF, the right to claim the payment of the deposit to Defendant BFF would be 405,39,210 won out of this court deposit 2275, 2009, 662,389,210 won, which had the right to claim the payment of the deposit.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is premised on the validity of the resolution of the board of directors on June 9, 2007 by Defendant B, and thus, I first examine the claim.

A. In addition to the entry of evidence No. 5 as to whether a quorum for proceedings is satisfied, the Council shall have approximately 20 directors under the rules of Defendant B.