소유권이전등기
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is the purport of the claim and the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except for the additional determination in paragraph 2. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
At the end of the 4th 16th am "(the plaintiff, on January 25, 2006, was actually prepared again to obtain a resolution of the ordinary general meeting held on November 2005, not a new resolution but a new resolution. It was confirmed again at the ordinary general meeting on November 2006.
However, even if so, “the general meeting did not meet a quorum 1/3” on November 2005 or November 2006 is added.
The part of the 6th two through three acts “the extraordinary general meeting of May 12, 2018, the ordinary general meeting of November 10, 2018, the extraordinary general meeting of May 12, 2018, and the ordinary general meeting of November 10, 2018” shall be changed to “the extraordinary general meeting of May 12, 2018, and the ordinary general meeting of November 10, 2018.”
2. The Plaintiff’s additional determination is null and void because the provisions of 1/3 of the quorum members stipulated in the Rules of the clan enacted in 1989 do not coincide with the present age, and is satisfied by a resolution of the majority of the members present at the meeting. As such, a resolution of the majority of the members present
The revised rules in 2006 and 2018 are valid, or even if not, the plaintiff attended and passed a resolution at an extraordinary general meeting on February 9, 2020 and at least 1/3 of the total closing members at the ordinary meeting on November 21, 2020, which was held by the plaintiff after the plaintiff's notice of convening a meeting with respect to the members who identified the best possible whereabouts.
First of all, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to deem that the quorum provisions set forth in the Rules of the 1989 clans are invalid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Therefore, the argument that assumes this premise is without merit.
Next, if Gap's evidence Nos. 48 to 72 added the purport of the whole pleading to the statement No. 48 to 72-3, the plaintiff is entitled to make a statement on Feb. 9, 2020.