1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

In addition to the amendment as stated in the following Paragraph 2, the decision at the trial court is identical to that of the plaintiff in the judgment at the trial of the first instance, so the relevant part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Part 1) The amended part of the first instance court’s 14, 15, 3, 6, 17, and 6, 6, and 13 are entirely deleted. 2) The 4th instance court’s 4th judgment in the first instance court’s 5th judgment “Uiwon District Court” is deemed as “Uiwon District Court within the territory of the Suwon District Court,” and the 5th judgment “No. 19, 2015” as “No. 19, 2016,” and “2015” as “2016.”

3) The first instance court’s judgment was immediately issued “No. 13” of the second instance judgment No. 5, and includes the number of pages (including the number of pages).

hereinafter the same shall apply.

4) Further, the “Special General Meeting for the Appointment of Officers of December 12, 2015” of the first instance judgment No. 6 of the second instance judgment is deemed to be “ July 22, 2015,” and the “93 persons” of the first instance judgment are deemed to be “94 persons,” and the “Special General Meeting for the Appointment of Officers of December 12, 2015” of the first instance judgment No. 17 and 18 are deemed to be “the instant Special Meeting.”

2. Additional decision ① As examined in the above quoted part, the term of office of the first election officer was terminated by the failure to hold the special general meeting of this case. ② Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s entries in the evidence Nos. 6, 11, and 15, which were pointed out by the court below, are unlawful in the election of the second election officer.

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s right to withdrawal was infringed upon in relation to the election of officers at the instant ordinary meeting, and no other data can be found to reverse the judgment of the cited part above. Thus, the Plaintiff’s argument in the first instance as to the grounds for appeal on a different premise is acceptable.

3. In conclusion, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.