청구이의
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.
1. The contents of this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, in addition to the following modifications, thereby citing them in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
Part 5 of the 5th sentence "this Court" was dismissed from the 5th sentence to the Daejeon District Court, and the 5th sentence to the 8th sentence to the 14th sentence, as follows, and the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed against each of the above judgments.
During the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2014Na2424, 2014Na2431 (Counterclaim), the defendant extended the claim for the counterclaim against the plaintiffs by asserting that the plaintiffs are liable to pay the contributions set forth in the third representative resolution after the third representative resolution and the third special meeting ratification resolution on September 14, 2015.
For this, the Plaintiffs asserted that the resolution of ratification of the special general meeting of September 14, 2015 is null and void due to the defect in the convocation procedure. ② The resolution of the representatives of the first, second, and third representatives is null and void because they failed to meet the requirements, etc. for the opening of the board of representatives. ③ The excessive amount of contributions, including the Defendant’s obligations to the members of the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “members”), which is highly likely to complete the extinctive prescription, was null and void against the mandatory law or social order
Therefore, the Daejeon High Court, an appellate court, was obligated to pay to the defendant the contributions set at the third representative resolution (18,746,131 won per household) in accordance with Article 31(1) and Article 22(5) of the Code of this case and the defendant's resolution of ratification of the special general meeting on September 14, 2015. On the other hand, the plaintiffs did not have any defect to deem the above resolution null and void at the resolution of ratification of the special general meeting on September 14, 2015. Although each representative resolution was defective at the first, second, and third representative resolution on September 14, 2015, each of the above representatives resolution was valid, lawful, and ③ the decision of the defendant general meeting was made unless it violates the mandatory law or social order.