1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

The reasons for this case are as follows. The court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed "G 12 years old descendants" among the 2nd, 19th, 4th and 21th of the judgment of the court of first instance as "AL 12 years old descendants", dismissed "witnesss" among the 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance as "witnesss of the court of first instance", and dismissed "F Da" in the 6th and 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the witness of the court of first instance", and added "the second 2. additional decision" to the assertion added by the defendants to this court as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, so they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The decision of February 25, 2018 of the plaintiff clan, which ratified the resolution of the special meeting of the plaintiff clan B and C on January 10, 2016 (the filing of the lawsuit, etc. of this case), was made to determine the scope of the members subject to the notification of convening the special meeting on the basis of the representative library published in 1991, not the representative library newly published in 2015, but the representative library published in 1991, and ② did not make any reasonable efforts possible to grasp the location of the members, ③ because the extraordinary general meeting was convened arbitrarily without the consent and delegation of the AM (name), which is the substantial colon, arbitrarily, and thus, the lawsuit of this case, which was brought without a legitimate resolution of the general meeting, is unlawful.

(1) In addition to the above special meeting as of February 25, 2018, the Defendants argued to the effect that the resolution is null and void even with respect to the special meeting as of December 30, 2017 of the Plaintiff clans who ratified the contents of the resolution of the special meeting as of January 10, 2016 and the general meeting as of January 10, 2016. However, as alleged by the Defendants, even if the resolution of each special meeting as of February 25, 2018 is null and void, the lawsuit of this case is lawful as long as the contents of the resolution of the general meeting as of January 10, 2016 were lawfully ratified at the general meeting as of February 25, 2018, and thus, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is not judged separately).