1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

purport.

1. The first instance court, among the plaintiffs' claims, rejected the plaintiffs' request for confirmation of invalidity of the general appointment resolution of G and the resolution of appointment of auditors against H, and accepted the intervenor's request for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of appointment of the chairman (hereinafter "instant resolution").

Since only the intervenor has filed an appeal against the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, only the above part is subject to the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for an additional determination as to the intervenor’s assertion as to this case, since the part concerning the claim for nullification of the resolution of this case is identical to the part concerning the claim for nullification of the resolution of this case among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance

3. Additional determination

A. Even if the Intervenor’s assertion that the instant resolution is null and void, the Intervenor’s assertion that the resolution was later adopted at the extraordinary general meeting of September 21, 2018 by the Defendant, and thus, the ratification of the instant resolution was adopted (hereinafter “the instant ratification resolution”), and the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution is asserting that there is no benefit of lawsuit as disputing the past legal relations.

B. In order for the resolution of ratification to be lawful and valid, there should be a new resolution to supplement all the defects of the invalid previous resolution. The following circumstances are as follows: (a) it is reasonable to view that the resolution of ratification of this case seriously infringes on the freedom and fairness of voting by free judgment due to the limitation of unfair candidate qualifications against the Plaintiff A, and thus adversely affected the result of the resolution, and (b) it is reasonable to deem that the resolution of this case was void due to significant defects in the procedure of appointing the president, and (c) the main amendment relating to the resolution of this case relating to the resolution of this case by the special general meeting of the Plaintiff as amended by the special meeting of June 27, 2018.