1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant E-fishing village fraternity are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The Plaintiffs filed a claim for nullification of and a claim for damages against each resolution of an extraordinary general meeting as of December 29, 2014 from the first instance court and May 14, 2015. The court of first instance accepted among them the claim for invalidity confirmation of the resolution of an extraordinary general meeting as of May 14, 2015 against the Defendant fishing village fraternity and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

As to this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiffs appealed against the part on the claim for damages among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the Defendant fishing village fraternity appealed to the part on the claim for nullification of the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting as of May 14, 2015, respectively. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for nullification of the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting as

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the plaintiffs' new arguments in this court are set forth in the first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's third 3-A.

As to the new argument in this Court of the Defendant fishing village fraternity, the following 3-B, on the 10th 20th 10th 20th 3th 3th 200.

With the exception of adding each judgment like Paragraph 1, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The addition;

A. The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the defendant fishing village fraternity's leasing the store of this case to the plaintiffs and claiming expenses, such as rent, constitutes "when it subleases the permitted property or transfers its right (No. 3)" among the grounds for revocation of permission under each subparagraph of Article 10 of the conditions of permission for the use of the public property for compensation for the land of this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the grounds for expulsion of the plaintiffs' failure to pay expenses.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the defendant fishing village fraternity claiming expenses such as store rents to the plaintiffs only based on the results of the statement No. 15-1 and No. 15-2 and the fact-finding on the conversion market in this court.