All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The allegation in the grounds of appeal No. 1 in this part is that the amendment of the rules of the clan to the abolition of the general meeting of the clan is null and void against the essence of the clan, and thus, it is not a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment of the court below, since it is a new argument

2. Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the resolution of the General Meeting of Representatives of this case was null and void and that the resolution of the board of directors held based on that resolution is also null and void.

For this reason, the following circumstances were revealed.

In 2009, the defendant changed the method of decision-making through the amendment of the rules of association in representative system, and the defendant distributed 20 representatives who exercise the right to decision-making on behalf of the members for each type of sub-committee and decided the representatives upon the recommendation of the sub-committee.

Although the plaintiffs asserted that there was a practice to decide on the appointment of a representative at the representative general meeting, it is difficult to view the case of the plaintiffs' assertion as a case supporting the above practice, and only by itself, it is difficult to view that there was a practice of normative force different from the method of determining representatives prescribed by the rules of the meeting at the time when the system was newly established.

The defendant requested the recommendation of a new representative to the sub-council under the jurisdiction of the sub-council prior to the general meeting of the sub-council of this case, and the representatives recommended by the sub-council of this case participated in the general meeting of the sub-council of this case, and there is no defect that can be

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the procedures for appointing representatives by exceeding the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as

3. The plaintiffs.