1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by F, expressed as the representative of the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a second instance as described in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts in height:

(a) At 4-5 at the bottom of the 6th page, the term “Capwon District Court 2005Gahap2700” was read as “Capwon District Court 2005Gahap2700”.

(b) treat “F” in nine pages 8 as “F”;

(c) 10, 14, and less than 6,00 square meters are as follows:

In the case of the minutes of the general meeting in 2010 and 2013, Plaintiff 6 decided to appoint “F as the representative of the Plaintiff’s clan.” However, in the case of the minutes of the general meeting in 2010, the minutes of the general meeting in the case of Plaintiff 2010, not the minutes of Plaintiff 2 but the minutes of the general meeting in 2013. In the case of the minutes of the general meeting in the year 2013, Plaintiff 6 appears to be the principal of the second head of the City/Do, attached to the minutes of the general meeting in 2012 by the second head of the City/Do, attached to the minutes of the general meeting in 2012 (the last head of City/Do, attached to the minutes of the general meeting in 2011).

) In light of the circumstances that the part of the last part of the City/Do session attached to the minutes of the general meeting in 2013, “AO, AG, AP, D, Q, AS, AS, each signature, sealing, and address shall be the copy of the first chapter attached to the minutes of the general meeting in 2012, which are part of the last part of the City/Do session attached to the minutes of the general meeting in 2013, is deemed to have been registered as the participants of the general meeting in the City/Do, even though a large number of the closing members listed in the attempt period attached to the minutes of the general meeting in 2013 were actually not present at the general meeting, and therefore, it is difficult to recognize that F was elected as the representative by legitimate resolution at the general meeting of Plaintiff 20.”

3. Conclusion.