1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs asserted by the parties, while the Defendant made a resolution on April 12, 2013 to compensate for D’s litigation costs, etc. at an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant resolution”). However, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant resolution was invalid due to a significant defect and sought confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution against the Defendant.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not have any interest in confirmation, since the Defendant made a new resolution at the ordinary meeting on November 22, 2014 after the instant resolution.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. If a clan ratified the previous resolution at a general meeting convened and passed a resolution according to legitimate procedures, it can be deemed as a new resolution with the same content as the previous resolution. Thus, even if the previous resolution is null and void, barring special circumstances such as the absence or invalidation due to a defect in the new resolution or the revocation of a resolution, seeking confirmation of invalidation of the previous resolution is merely seeking confirmation of legal relations or legal relationship in the past, and thus, it should be deemed as lacking the requirements for protection of rights

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da53419, Apr. 11, 1995; 2010Da10986, Apr. 12, 2012). B

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 8-1, No. 8-2, No. 2-1, and No. 2-3, the Defendant made a resolution in this case with the content that the Defendant would pay No. 350,000 won in cash to D at the extraordinary general meeting of April 12, 2013, and that it would create superficies and right to lease on a deposit basis to E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EM factory area and a gas station, and the fact that the Defendant adopted a new resolution with the same content as the instant resolution at the ordinary meeting of November 22,

(2) As above, the Defendant’s resolution at the ordinary meeting of November 22, 2014 is the same as the instant resolution.