beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The application for correction of the identification of each party by EY and FK shall be dismissed.
3. The appeal costs.
Reasons
1. As to this case, this Court cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following two judgments to each party’s request for correction of indication at the trial of EY and FK, and therefore, as it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to each party’s application for correction of marks E,Y and FK
A. On November 4, 2012, EY filed an application for the correction of the Plaintiff’s indication, asserting that he/she was appointed as a new representative of the Plaintiff clan from the extraordinary meeting of the Plaintiff clan on November 4, 2012, and filed an application for the correction of the Plaintiff’s indication with the court of the trial on July 16, 2014, by appointing attorneys FL and FM as a legal representative and appointing the representative of the Plaintiff’s clan as the legal representative.
Therefore, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether or not the EY legitimately appoints the representative of the Plaintiff’s clan from the above extraordinary general meeting, the EY held an extraordinary general meeting on November 4, 2012, and held an extraordinary general meeting on November 28, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s 29-1, 29-2, and 30-1, 2, and 30-3, respectively. From around October 25, 2012, the EY: (a) as the colon of the Plaintiff’s clan, “the officer election, draft bylaws, and resolution of the previous board of representatives, and ratification of the former chairperson’s partial handling of the work for the former president,” (b) notified the Plaintiff’s members to hold an extraordinary general meeting on November 4, 2012, and (c) held an extraordinary general meeting on November 4, 2012, and (d) took place with the Plaintiff’s remaining members and members of the EF, who were not the members of the Defendant 2 and the 12.