Attached 1 List (Law Firm Round, Attorneys Noh Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] Urban Environment Improvement Association (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Seo Chang-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

May 25, 2017

1. Of the resolution on the agenda set forth in attached Table 2 set forth in attached hereto at an ordinary general meeting on April 17, 2015, the Defendant confirms that the resolution on the agenda set forth in attached Table 2 and the resolution on the appointment of the partnership head and two auditors among the agenda set forth in subparagraph 12 are null and void.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/5 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

The Defendant confirms that all resolutions on the attached Form 2 (the agenda referred to in subparagraph 12 shall be deemed null and void only when a resolution on the appointment of the president, two auditors, and two full-time directors is adopted) made at an ordinary general meeting of associations held by the Defendant on April 17, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 31, 2009, the Defendant was established for the purpose of urban environmental improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on a lot of 55,196 square meters in Seongbuk-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiffs are the Defendant’s members.

B. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant held a general assembly at the Gictoria hotel in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant general assembly”) on April 17, 2015 in order to vote on the 12 agenda items listed in attached Table 2, including “cases of approval for the modification of the articles of association of a cooperative.”

C. The Defendant compiled at a general meeting that 309 of the total number of 452 members (i.e., 74 members directly present + 235 members of a written resolution) participated in the voting. As indicated below, the ballot counting results were compiled as follows: (a) the majority of the members present and the majority of the members present agree with respect to the matters referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 11; (b) the Defendant’s president rejected the amendment of the articles of association of the partnership No. 1 (as to the amendment of the articles of association that require the consent of more than a majority of the members or more than a third of the members, a resolution was passed on the amendment of the articles of association that require the consent of more than a majority of the members, and on the matters referred to in subparagraphs 2 through

No. 1, 162 136 1309 124 16 16309 16309 16309 16309 16309 16302 4 16309 16309 16309 16309 16304 16 16416 16 171 17309 17 17 162 1309 1309 8 161309 162 1309 16309 16309 16309 1309 14 1309 14 1309 14 1309

D. When the result of the ballot counting was aggregated with respect to the appointment of executive officers of the association, which is an agenda item No. 12, the head of the Defendant association declared that Nonparty 14, who is the multi-sponsor, was the head of the association, Nonparty 17, and Nonparty 11, who is the multi-sponsor, was appointed as each auditor, and Nonparty 16 and Nonparty 15, who is the multi-sponsor, as a full-time director (

The number of non-party 1 and non-party 14 and the 14.2. Nonparty 1 and the 14.2. Nonparty 1 (the 14: 156 marks, Plaintiff 1: 1: 41 marks) of the 309 auditor 1. Nonparty 25 and Nonparty 17 (the 17: 154 marks, Non-party 11: 151 marks, Non-party 15: 16 marks, Non-party 14: 309 (the 15: 15: 172 of the 15: 172 of the 15: 163 non-party 16: 380 marks, Non-party 16: 30 of the 309 full-time director-time director-time candidate (the 15: 15: 172 of the 15: 15: 141 marks, Non-party 30 of the 16: 398 non-party 4 and non-party 398).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 16 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 24 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and determination as to the "case of the approval of the amendment to the articles of association of a cooperative" under subparagraph 1

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The “case of approval for the modification of the articles of association of a cooperative” under subparagraph 1 includes all cases where the quorum is different in accordance with Article 20(3) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, namely, where the majority of incumbent union members or the consent of 2/3 or more of union members is required and where consent of the majority of union members present and the consent of the majority of union members present is required. As such, the Defendant Union should have resolved separately in the same case. Nevertheless, as the Defendant Union resolved the agenda item No. 1 in a lump sum, it should be deemed that the agenda item No. 1 was rejected in entirety

B. Defendant’s assertion

Even if a collective decision was made, the entire decision cannot be deemed null and void, and only the majority of the union members present and the majority of the union members present consent according to the quorum should be deemed to have been passed.

C. Determination

1) According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

① The amendment of the instant articles of incorporation constitutes a full-scale amendment to which 57 provisions among the existing articles of incorporation are to be amended or modified, and the amendment contains a large number of provisions that require the consent of 2/3 or more of the union members or the consent of more than a majority of the union members (the Defendant also acknowledges that 7 provisions, including Article 3, including 2/3 or more of the union members, and 33 provisions, including Article 2, should require the consent of more than a majority of the union members).

② However, there was no explanation of the quorum necessary for the modification of each provision in the data distributed to the union members before the general assembly of this case (Evidence A 3), and a comprehensive vote was held without dividing the items according to the articles of incorporation or the quorum of the amended articles of incorporation.

③ The president of the Defendant Union rejected the amendment of the articles of association at the end of the instant general assembly, and only declared that the remainder was resolved, and the amendment of each provision was not made (Evidence A 1). The same applies to the result of deliberation on the agenda distributed to the members after the instant general assembly (Evidence A 2).

2) First, since the articles of association of a reconstruction association under the Urban Improvement Act regulates the legal relations of a reconstruction association, such as the organization, activities, rights and obligations of association members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da49381, May 12, 2016), there is a need to determine whether to revise or modify the articles of association in order to prevent confusion and disputes among the reconstruction association and majority members and to ensure clarity of legal relations between many interested parties, legal stability and predictability, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to objectively and clearly determine whether to revise or modify the articles of association in a lump sum. Therefore, the amendment of the articles of association shall be deemed to have been effective, and if the remainder is deemed to have been rejected, it is unclear to which specific provisions have been resolved, and accordingly, it is likely to cause another dispute by impairing clarity, legal stability, predictability, and predictability.

3) Furthermore, as long as the instant articles of association were put to a collective vote on the amendment, members should be deemed to have expressed a single collective intent on the amendment of the articles of association containing a provision requiring the consent of at least 2/3 of the members. It cannot be deemed that the quorum is divided by a provision different from the quorum and expressed a different collective intention.

4) Ultimately, the entire amendment of the articles of incorporation should be deemed to have been rejected unless the necessary quorum for a part of the amendment of the instant articles of incorporation is satisfied (in response, the Defendant asserted that the amendment of the instant articles of incorporation was legitimate at the general meeting held on August 26, 201 at the time of the inaugural general meeting, and stated the existing articles of incorporation in the articles of incorporation at the time of the inaugural general meeting not amended on August 26, 2011 (see evidence 3 and evidence 4). The Defendant’s assertion per se provides the members with information different from the facts (see evidence 3 and evidence 4). Accordingly, the agenda item 1 ought to be deemed to have been entirely rejected.

3. The assertion and determination of the parties to the agenda Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 9

A. The parties' assertion

For the following reasons, with respect to the agenda items Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 9 of the instant general meeting, the Plaintiffs asserted that the consent of at least 2/3 of the members is necessary, and the Defendant asserts that the consent of the majority of the members present and the majority

The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion of the parties to the table included in the main text 3: The contract for construction work (provisional contract) submitted by the defendant to the original general meeting of this case was ratified on December 13, 2006 by the committee of promoters before the establishment of the defendant, and it actually delegates the conclusion of this contract to the council of delegates, as well as the modification of the "matters to be included in the contract with the work executor" to the committee of delegates the cost burden to the committee of delegates. It is clear that the contract was based on the premise of the future conclusion of this contract or the significant impact on the interests of the association members. The plaintiffs 4 plaintiffs - 4 - 4 - 7 - 4 - 7 - 7 - 7 - - 7 - 7 - 7 - were proposed to be amended to the committee of delegates to the committee of delegates for reconstruction and development, and it is not expected that the amendment of the proposed urban planning plan would have an important impact on the development of the association's association's budget.

(b) Relevant legal principles;

Article 20(1)15 of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 7392, Mar. 18, 2005; hereinafter the same) provides that “matters to be included in a work executor’s contract” shall be included in the articles of incorporation in consideration of the fact that the contents of “matters to be included in the work executor’s contract have a significant impact on the members’ share of expenses, etc.” (Article 20(1)15); and Article 20(3) of the same Act provides that the members’ consent shall be obtained in order to modify matters to be entered in the articles of incorporation (Article 20(3) of the same Act). Therefore, in cases where an agenda concerning “matters to be included in the contract with a work executor is presented to a general meeting for resolution on an amendment of the terms and conditions of the members’ share of expenses adopted at the time of the initial reconstruction, the resolution quorum is a resolution that practically amends the articles of incorporation even if it is not directly subject to a resolution to amend the articles of incorporation, and thus, the provisions of Article 20(3)15).

Furthermore, in cases where “matters concerning the qualifications of association members” or “expenses of association members,” which require a strict procedure for modifying the articles of association of a housing reconstruction association, are substantially modified to the extent that the interests of association members could be significantly affected when compared to the time of the initial reconstruction resolution, it is reasonable to view that the provision of Article 20(3), Article 20(1)2 and 8 of the former Act, which seeks to protect the interests of association members, should apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure for modifying the articles of association of a housing reconstruction association, by prescribing the requirements for consent, even if that procedure is not a procedure for amending the articles of association (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da31884, Jan. 30, 2009

C. Determination

1) As to the approval of the conclusion of a provisional contract for construction works under subparagraph 3

(3) On August 11, 2006, the committee of promoters prior to the establishment of the defendant selected the Vietnam project team as the executor of the instant rearrangement project, and entered into a contract with the contractor on December 13, 2006, with the contractor on December 16, 2006. The main contents of the contract include 16,496 in total, 4,596 in total, 4,000 won in total, 106,00 in total, 4,000 in total, 106,00 in total, 48 months in total, 48 months in total, and 20 days in total, and 40 days in total, as long as the contract was concluded with the contractor at the general meeting of promoters, the defendant again proposed the new agreement with the contractor at the general meeting of promoters at the time when the Act on February 6, 2006 becomes final and conclusive.

In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant’s approval of the agenda item No. 3 is that the Defendant concludes a contract for construction work with the contractor, and even though the form of the contract is a binding contract, it cannot be denied that it is a contract, and since the contract amount, etc. is stipulated in a provisional contract, it shall be deemed to have determined “matters to be included in the contractor’s contract.” Ultimately, since the resolution on the agenda item No. 3, which is the content that approves the conclusion of such provisional contract, is actually a resolution to “matters to be included in the contractor’s contract,” it is reasonable to deem that Article 20(3) and Article 20(1)15 of the Urban Improvement Act requires the consent of more than 2/3 of the union members by applying mutatis mutandis the aforementioned legal doctrine. Since the majority of union members present and the consent of the union members present cannot be deemed to have been a valid resolution, the agenda item

2) As to the case of “approval of the budget of a cooperative” in subparagraph 4, “a case of ratification by the Agreement on Combined Development,” subparagraph 7, and subparagraph 9, “the selection of a collaborative company to modify a project implementation plan and the case of a contract”

In full view of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 30, 41, and 53, the following circumstances, namely, ① the head of the Defendant’s association entered into an agreement for combined development with the committee for promotion of the redevelopment project of Class II houses in the vicinity of Seongbuk on November 2011; ② the head of the Defendant’s association held a board of representatives on June 29, 201 and concluded the agreement with the KS Engineering Co., Ltd. as an urban design company for combined development (hereinafter “K”), and concluded the agreement with the KS and the service contract (hereinafter “the contract amount of KRW 1.98,000,000), ③ the KS conducted the service work for about four years from that time until April 14, 201, Nonparty 14 entered into the agreement with the committee for promotion of the redevelopment project of Class II houses in the vicinity of Seongbuk; ② the head of the Plaintiff’s association entered into the agreement with the Seoul High Court on June 26, 2016.

In full view of these circumstances, the agenda items Nos. 4, 7, and 9 are all subject to an agreement, a budget bill, and a service contract is approved on the premise of combined development with Seongbuk North Korea Zone No. 2. Thus, in the event of combined development, it is clear that the location and size of the prearranged zone for a rearrangement project, the scope of the association members, and the cost to be borne by the association members (an increase in service costs) will be changed. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the resolution on the agenda items in this part requires the consent of more than 2/3 of the association members by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 20(3), 2, 4, and 8 of the Urban Improvement Act. Since the majority of the association members present and the consent of the majority of the union members present alone cannot be deemed to have been effectively resolved, this part of the agenda items also

4. The parties' assertion and determination as to "a case of approving amendment to a project implementation plan" under subparagraph 8

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that since the agenda item No. 8 is an amendment of the project implementation plan, consent of more than a majority of registered members is required under the Urban Improvement Act.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the agenda item 8 is not the change or determination of the project implementation plan because the resolution has been adopted, but the resolution of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Planning Deliberation Committee is expected to obtain a resolution of the general meeting of union members for the purpose of applying for the change of the project implementation plan, so the majority of union members present and the majority of union

B. Determination

The agenda item No. 8 is to change the original state ratio of 70 (No residence):30 (non-residential), floor area ratio of 600% to the main state ratio of 85 (non-residential area):15 (non-residential area) and floor area ratio of 680%. This constitutes a change of a project implementation plan that is substantially premised on the development of a combination, it is reasonable to deem that the consent of a majority of the members is necessary pursuant to Article 24 (3) 9-2 and (6) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 13508, Sept. 1, 2015) for the resolution. Since the majority of the members present and the consent of the majority of the members present cannot be deemed to have been a valid resolution, the agenda item No. 8 shall also be deemed to have been rejected.

5. Plaintiffs’ assertion and determination of “cases of approval related to the appointment of attorneys-at-law” under subparagraph 11

A. Summary of the assertion

The resolution of the general meeting on the agenda set forth in subparagraph 11 is to approve the crime of occupational embezzlement at the general meeting, which is to be implemented with the defendant's budget. It is not effective against the purport of the enactment of the defendant's articles of association, which aims to contribute to the improvement of urban environment and the quality of residential life, and to the improvement of residential stability and the quality of residential life of the association members (the plaintiffs recognize the majority of the association members present and the majority of the union members present at the meeting).

B. Determination

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 (68,69 pages), the agenda item No. 11 at the general meeting of this case is that "the plaintiff 1, etc. entered into a legal counsel agreement with the law firm regarding the case of complaint and accusation continuously filed against the defendant and the president of the association, and paid 10 million won from the association's budget to the law firm, and later discovered and recover the amount of 5 million won for the law firm appointed by the president of the association upon filing an application for formal trial against the summary order, and later confirmed that the expenses required for various litigation affairs in the course of the affairs and the affairs of the association were erroneous." This resolution is understood to the effect that "the expenses required for the affairs of the association will be disbursed in the budget of the association through a resolution of the board of directors and the board of representatives." Thus, it is difficult to view that this resolution is an individual association to bear the litigation expenses regardless of the affairs of the association." Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is not accepted.

6. The parties' assertion and determination as to the quorum of appointment of a union officer under subparagraph 12

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

At the time of the inaugural general meeting, Article 15(2) of the Articles of Incorporation provides that “The executives of the partnership shall be appointed with the attendance of the majority of the members and with the consent of the majority of the members present.” However, at the general meeting of August 26, 2011, the Defendant, alleging that the articles of incorporation was changed to the appointment of the executives in the case of competition with several persons at the general meeting

However, at the general meeting of August 26, 2011, the agenda items to be amended to the articles of association No. 2 ought to be deemed to have been rejected. At the same time, the foregoing agenda items included matters requiring the consent of a majority of union members. However, the Defendant stated that the modification of the articles of association was passed in its entirety with the consent of 212 members, not a majority of the union members, at the time of 439 members, by presenting the items to be modified to the articles of association en bloc. Since the modification of the articles of association at the general meeting of August 26, 201 becomes null and void, the union officers at the instant general meeting should be appointed with the attendance of a majority of union

B. Defendant’s assertion

Since Article 15(2) of the Articles of Incorporation was legally amended at the Assembly of August 26, 2011 at the Assembly of the Republic of Korea to select the persons with multiple votes, a resolution that appoints the persons with multiple votes at the Assembly of this case as the executives of the association is valid.

C. Determination

According to the evidence Eul's evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the amendment of the articles of incorporation was proposed on August 26, 201 as an agenda item No. 2 at the general meeting of the Assembly on August 26, 201. The content of the amendment is as follows: (a) the modification of the membership's eligibility (Articles 9 through 11); (b) the modification of the eligibility for election and the quorum for officers of a cooperative (Article 15(2)); (c) the modification of the eligibility for election for union officers and the quorum for election within five years (Article 15(2); (d) the partner who has resided in the project implementation district for not less than three years as of the date the establishment is authorized; and (e) the partner who has owned land or buildings for not less than five years; and (e) the number of members who have resided in the project implementation district as of the date the establishment is authorized; and (e) the defendant declared the modification of the articles of incorporation by 234 members present at the time of August 26, 2011.

However, as seen earlier, even though the amendment of the articles of incorporation differs from the voting, it shall be deemed that the collective intent is expressed in a lump sum, and it shall not be deemed that the collective intent is different by dividing the provisions different from the voting. Furthermore, Article 15(2) of the articles of incorporation of the instant case includes not only the modification of the quorum but also the modification of the eligibility for election, but also the modification of the voting. However, it cannot be deemed that only the quorum portion has been resolved separately.

As a result, the amendment of the articles of incorporation as of August 26, 201 should be deemed null and void (i.e., the amendment of the articles of incorporation must be objectively and clearly decided, and the mere fact that the Plaintiffs invoked the amended articles of incorporation as above or did not raise an objection to the amendment of the articles of incorporation does not become null and void merely because the amendment of the articles of incorporation was not effective). An officer of the association at the general meeting of this case must be appointed with the attendance of

Therefore, even if the defendant's assertion that 309 of the 452 members (including written resolution) present and made a valid vote, the resolution on appointment of the auditor, Nonparty 17 (154) and Nonparty 11 (151), who did not reach the majority of the members present, is invalid.

7. The parties' assertion and judgment on a written resolution, method of recording, attendance, etc.

(1) The portion to be judged null and void in the future is determined by the following grounds: (a) The portion to be determined in this context is the part against the president, non-party 14, non-party 15, and non-party 16 among the items referred to in subparagraphs 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12, which require the consent of the majority

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Where the written resolution itself is null and void

Inasmuch as eight written resolution among the members compiled by the defendant with the consent of the defendant is deemed not to have been submitted to the general meeting of this case for the following reasons, each eight mark shall be deducted from the list of the union members present at each agenda and the affirmative votes (excluding Nonparty 2 among the eight persons, are put in favor of the defendant with respect to the agenda items Nos. 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12, but the written resolution by Nonparty 2 is put in favor of the defendant, but only the president of the partnership among the agenda items Nos. 2, 5, 6, 10, and 12 are put in favor of the defendant).

① Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 27, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 28 (including Nonparty 6) did not have prepared and submitted a written resolution in relation to the instant general meeting and did not delegate the preparation thereof, a written resolution in the name of the said members was prepared and submitted. Each written resolution in the above form was forged.

② Although Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted) Park 645 square meters and its ground buildings owned by the Foundation, a written resolution for the general meeting of this case has the signature and seal of Nonparty 29 of the Hansung school meeting. This is the submission of a written resolution for signature by a person who is not a member of the Association.

③ According to Article 9(3) of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation, where one household or one person owns the ownership or superficies of at least two land or buildings, the number of members shall be deemed one, regardless of the number thereof. Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 2 omitted) is jointly owned by Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 30, and ( Address 3 omitted) is solely owned by Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 30 are owned by one household as a husband and wife. Nevertheless, Nonparty 5 submitted two written resolution, and one of them shall be deemed null and void.

(ii) Where the mark is invalidated due to an error;

The written resolution submitted to the meeting of this case is a standard form prepared by Seoul Metropolitan Government as part of the measures to prevent forgery and alteration and distributed to the reconstruction association, etc., and the defendant's preference restricted the method of recording by written resolution to one of three methods (i.e., writing signature, obstacle seal, seal seal), and provided that it may be treated as invalid if it is written in any other way ("TB","V).

Each written resolution of Nonparty 18, Nonparty 19, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 20, Nonparty 21, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, Nonparty 11, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 13, and Nonparty 31 (not less than 13 persons) shall be deemed null and void on each relevant agenda on the grounds as indicated below.

Nonparty 2, 5, 6, 6, 10, 11 and 12 (limited to the partnership head) indicated by Nonparty 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 11 and 12 (limited to Nonparty 7 Nonparty 2, 5, 6, 6, 10, 11 and 12, with signs, other than Nonparty 12, Nonparty 12, on which Nonparty 6’s name was affixed, without Nonparty 13, 5, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and Nonparty 10 Nonparty 12, Nonparty 2, 5, 6, 12, 10, 12, Nonparty 10 Nonparty 12, Nonparty 13, 5, 6, 10, 10, 11, 112, and Nonparty 112, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 113, 6, 10, 111, or seal.

(iii) treat the member present without being absent;

Nonparty 32 submitted a written resolution before the date of the general meeting pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Articles of Incorporation, but was treated as being absent on the ground that he expressed his intention to withdraw the written resolution by the content certification on the day of the general meeting. However, the withdrawal that did not arrive before the date of the general meeting shall be deemed null and void. Therefore, Nonparty 32 shall

Although Nonparty 33, co-owner, Nonparty 34, and Nonparty 23 submitted a written resolution, they were classified as document expenses related to the power of representation and disposed of without attendance, it shall be deemed to have made a written resolution.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the written resolution itself is invalid

The determination on the invalidity of each written resolution by the plaintiffs is as follows.

Non-party 1 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, which are included in the main sentence of this paper, stated that the non-party 1 2 and the non-party 2 were not prepared and submitted a written resolution (A 3-1) or delegated the preparation of a written resolution (A 3-1), and that Non-party 2 prepared and submitted a written resolution (A 2, 5, 10, 11, and 12 (A 13-1) to the effect that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not prepared and submitted or delegated to the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's signature and seal 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's signature and seal 5's signature and seal 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's signature and seal 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's signature and seal 15's signature 6-1-1 and other evidence 2.

2) As to the assertion that the mark is invalid due to an erroneous recording method

In order to prevent confusion and dispute between the reconstruction association and majority members and to ensure the clarity, legal stability, and predictability of legal relations among many interested persons, the criteria therefor should be objective, uniform, and clear. The written resolution submitted to the meeting of this case shall be indicated as follows: “In the form of a written resolution submitted to the meeting of this case, the three methods of choosing one of the three methods (in the form of signature, seal, seal) shall be inserted, and in other cases (hereinafter “V”) shall be deemed null and void.” Thus, other than the above three methods (a private person other than signature) shall be deemed null and void. However, if the defect in the written resolution itself is not serious and the intent of the association members expressed in the written resolution is clearly expressed, it shall not be deemed null and void. In light of such circumstances, the written resolution submitted to the meeting of this case shall be indicated as follows.

Non-party 15-1, 6, 10, 11, and 12, together with the seal affixed on the column corresponding to Non-party 18-12, but the name was written under Non-party 21, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12, and the name was written under Non-party 21, 5, 10, 16, 10, 11 and 12, which was the valid Non-party 15-3, Non-party 72, 5, 6, 10, 16, 10, 15, 10, 15, 16, 12, which was the valid Non-party 15-3, Non-party 12, Non-party 2, Non-party 15, 26, 10, 10, 10, 11, and 12.

3) As to the assertion that some of the members who were absent should be included in the attendance of the union member

In light of the following circumstances, it is justifiable for the Defendant to treat the written resolution of Nonparty 32 and Nonparty 33 as non-existence of each member, and to invalidate the written resolution of Nonparty 34 (Co-owner Nonparty 23).

A) Nonparty 32

The non-party 32 submitted a written resolution before the general meeting of this case and again submitted it to the defendant association. The fact that the written resolution withdrawal was delivered to the defendant on the day of the general meeting of this case does not conflict between the parties.

Based on Article 22(3) of the Defendant’s Articles of association stating that “When attending a general meeting of a union in writing, a written withdrawal of written resolution by Nonparty 32, who reached the union on the day of the general meeting, shall not be effective, and shall be deemed to have been present in accordance with the existing written resolution submitted.”

However, prior to the establishment of a resolution by means of a written resolution, the consent of the resolution may be withdrawn. The expression of intent of withdrawal shall not necessarily be made in accordance with a certain procedure and method, unless otherwise stipulated in the union rules or in the articles of incorporation, such as the expression of consent to the resolution, and it is sufficient that there is an act or appearance to clarify the intent of withdrawal (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da83533 Decided August 21, 2008). The above articles of association asserted by the plaintiffs is only a provision regarding the submission of a written resolution, but not a provision related to the time of withdrawal of the written resolution. In addition, after the completion of the voting at the general meeting of this case, the head of the defendant association withdrawn the written resolution already submitted to the members present at the general meeting before the ballot counting of the written resolution and confirmed whether the members directly vote are union members [No. 14]. Considering such circumstances, the resolution of this case is valid on the day before the general meeting of this case (No. 32 withdrawal).

B) Nonparty 33

According to Article 9(4) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation, in the case of co-owners, several co-owners shall prepare a written consent for the appointment of representative partner and report it to the association and the representative partner shall conduct legal acts. However, Nonparty 3, one of the co-owners of Seongbuk-gu Seoul ( Address 4 omitted) land, did not submit the aforementioned written consent for the appointment of representative. It is difficult to deem that there was any illegality in treating Nonparty 33 by non-party 3 as the representative partner (it cannot be deemed that Nonparty 33 was the representative solely on the ground that Nonparty 3 was actually working as representative member among co-owners). In reference, the written resolution was invalid on the ground that Nonparty 37 and Nonparty 38, who provided an opinion favorable to the Defendant’s side, had no representative appointment (No. 50-2, 3, and 4).

C) Nonparty 34 (Co-owner Nonparty 23)

Although Nonparty 34 and Nonparty 23 are co-owners, they submitted a written resolution separately without appointing a representative, and so long as the contents of the written resolution conflict with each other (Evidence No. 46, 47), it cannot be deemed unlawful to invalidate each written resolution submitted by Nonparty 34 and Nonparty 23.

4) Sub-committee

As seen earlier, some of the written resolution is forged or invalidated, and it is unlawful that the submission of the written resolution by Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 5 (one written resolution) was not by itself submitted or submitted twice. As such, it shall be excluded from the total number of votes and the supporting vote for each item, and the remaining invalid written resolution shall be included in the total number of votes for each item, but shall be excluded from the supporting vote.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that the quorum of all the agenda items is the majority of the union members present and the majority of the union members present (the majority of the union members present are 153), the issue of whether a resolution is passed and rejected is as follows (the calculation of the overall agenda items is added or added to the ballot counting result of the general meeting of this case).

As a result of the affirmative votes of the votes included in the main text, No. 2 subparag. 2 and 157 (=169-12) 124-25 (=166 +9) 306 (=169-3) (=164-12) and 129-306 (=16+166) (=16 +9) and 129-306 (=159=171-12) 6-126 (i.e., 171-12) 306 (=17+17+309-3) and 149 (i.e., 161-12) 134 and 306) (i.e., Nonparty 306 (i., 150-12-12-12) and (ii) Nonparty 2309-136) (i.e., Nonparty 306)

8. The plaintiffs' assertion and determination that the overall election of executive officers of this case was unlawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) On April 2, 2015, the Defendant’s Election Commission (hereinafter “Election Commission”) sent a written resolution to its members on the same day. The Defendant’s Election Commission did not disclose information on the form of the written resolution, the number of copies of the written resolution, the details of return, and the number of service providers demanding written resolution to the remainder candidates except Nonparty 14. This violates the obligation to notify and publicly notify matters concerning the rights and obligations of the members under Article 7 of the Defendant’s Articles of association.

2) In addition, the Defendant’s execution division and the election commission did not comply with the request for witness or confirmation of some of the members opposing Nonparty 14, who are the candidates for the head of the association on the day of the instant general meeting, and unilaterally carried out the procedures for verifying the qualifications of the members present at the general meeting, such as the process of confirming the qualifications of the members present at the general meeting, the management and opening of the ballot box, the ballot paper and the compilation of a written resolution, etc., and the said members

3) Furthermore, Nonparty 17’s candidate marks were three at the time of registration, and Nonparty 11’s candidate marks were two. However, Nonparty 17’s candidate marks were changed to 2, and Nonparty 11’s candidate marks were changed to 3, and Nonparty 16’s candidate marks were two at the time of registration, and Nonparty 15’s candidate marks were three, but Nonparty 16’s candidate marks were changed to 3 and Nonparty 15’s candidate marks were changed to 2. Considering these circumstances, the instant candidate marks were changed to 3 and Nonparty 15’s candidate marks. In the written resolution, the instant candidate marks were changed to 2. Considering these circumstances, all of the instant candidate marks were changed to 2.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, with respect to partnership presidents and auditors appointed by the general assembly of this case, the resolution of appointment becomes null and void due to lack of quorum, this part of the claim is examined only in relation to the resolution of appointment of full-time directors recognized as valid above.

1) As to the defect in the election management process

In cases where some errors exist in the election management procedures for the election of executive officers of a reconstruction and redevelopment cooperative, the invalidation of the election resolution shall be determined in consideration of whether such errors interfered with the free decision, thereby seriously impairing the freedom and fairness, and thereby affecting the result of the election resolution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da102533, Oct. 25, 2012).

Although Defendant’s team did not notify the candidates in advance of information about the form, number of copies of written resolution, details of return, and the number and operation of the service provider demanding written resolution, it is difficult to deem that such error substantially infringed the freedom and fairness of the election as long as the validity of the instant resolution for election ought to be denied, or that it affected the instant resolution for election.

Furthermore, in full view of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 22-1 and 2-1 and 2, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 35 et al. prepared and submitted a written confirmation that “the perusal of the current status of the entries in the written resolution of the participants of the general assembly of this case was made.” It is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone was the progress of the instant election by significantly unfair means, such as refusing to witness a specific member on the day of the general assembly of this case.

The plaintiffs' assertion in this part is not accepted.

2) As to the error in writing of Nonparty 16 and Nonparty 15’s candidate marks on the written resolution

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the candidate identification number in the written resolution of Nonparty 16 and Nonparty 15, who was run as an auditor, was changed differently from the identification number granted at the time of candidate registration.

However, according to Eul evidence No. 15, the defendant found that the identification number assigned at the time of candidate registration and the identification number recorded in the written resolution distributed to the union members as above was changed, and on April 3, 2015, 2015, before the 14th day of the general meeting of this case, the defendant sent to union members a notice to the effect that "where the identification number of candidates in written resolution was corrected by the initial identification number, but the identification number was corrected by the identification number, and the mark was recorded without correcting the identification, it shall be treated as having been recorded with the candidate's name." The candidate whose identification mark was changed without raising any objection against the change of the identification number, and it is recognized that the defendant prepared and submitted a written confirmation to comply with the election result.

Therefore, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as null and void all of the written resolution that changed the number. This part of the argument is rejected.

9. Conclusion

In the resolution of the general meeting of this case on the agenda items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the resolution on the agenda items stated in attached Table 2, the appointment resolution on the head of the association and two auditors shall be deemed null and void, respectively. The plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Choi Nam-sik (Presiding Judge)