1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal of each corresponding part as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4, Part 17, "this Court" was dismissed to Daejeon District Court, from Part 4, 21 to 5, 7, and 2, as follows. 3) The plaintiffs and the defendant appealed against each of the above judgments.

During the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2014Na2424, 2014Na2431 (Counterclaim), the defendant extended the purport of the counterclaim by asserting that the third representative resolution and the ratification resolution of the special general meeting on September 14, 2015 are required to pay the contributions set by the third representative resolution and that the plaintiffs are obligated to pay the contributions set by the third representative resolution.

For this, the Plaintiffs asserted that the resolution of ratification of the special general meeting of September 14, 2015 is null and void due to the defect in the convocation procedure. ② The resolution of the representatives of the first, second, and third representatives is null and void because they failed to meet the requirements for the opening of the board of representatives. ③ The excessive amount of contributions, including the Defendant’s obligations to the members of the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “members”), which is highly likely to have the expiration of the extinctive prescription, were null and void in violation of the mandatory law or social order.

The appellate court is obligated to pay to the defendant the contributions (18,746,131 won per household) set at the third representatives' resolution according to the resolution of ratification of the special meeting of this case on December 3, 2015 and Article 31(1) and Article 22(5) of the Rules and the defendant on September 14, 2015. ① there is no defect to deem the above resolution null and void at the resolution of ratification of the special meeting of this case on September 14, 2015. ② there is a defect in the resolution of ratification of the special meeting of this case but there is a defect in the resolution of the first, second, and third representatives on September 14, 2015, and ③ the decision of the defendant general meeting is valid and lawful, and ③ the decision of the defendant general meeting does not violate the mandatory law or social order.