1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part that is changed in paragraph (2) below, and thus, the relevant entry including the attached Form is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts changed;

A. The fourth fourth line of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the fourth four pages”) is the “1:0-14:30 on July 17, 2013” and the “dispensive director” of the fifth line (12nd) is replaced by “repeach director”; and the “witness L and I’s testimony” of the 18-19 lines into “the first instance trial witness L and part of the I testimony”.

B. The portion from 5th to 16th 21th son of the judgment of the court of first instance is replaced by the lower court’s indication.

1) Although the articles of incorporation of a nonprofit incorporated foundation under the Civil Act require a convocation notice, prior to holding a board of directors, stating the agenda items of a meeting, etc., a non-profit incorporated foundation did not attend the meeting due to the relationship that did not undergo the procedure on the convocation notice. If some of the directors did not hold the board of directors, and if only some of the directors were to prepare the meeting minutes or hold the board of directors by gathering only some of the directors, a resolution of the board of directors shall not exist or shall be deemed null

In such cases, a director who did not receive a legitimate notice of convocation was present and cast a vote.

Even though there was no influence on the establishment of the board of directors resolution by one of them, the conclusion that the resolution of the board of directors was invalid as a matter of course is not hindered.

(A) According to the above facts of recognition (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da749, Jul. 24, 1992) based on these legal principles, the above facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the board of directors (I, K, N, J, and M) recorded in the minutes of the instant case are as follows: (i) the five directors of the Defendant (I, K, N, J, and M) appears in the president of the Daejeon Office of the Defendant on July 16, 2013 at the Daejeon Branch of the Defendant’s Daejeon Branch of the Daejeon Branch of the Daejeon Branch of the Daejeon Branch of the Defendant and resolved on the change of the officers (director) who appointed the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s director on the same day