1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of “ad hoc judgment” as stated in the following Paragraph (2) after Chapter 7 of the judgment of the first instance among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. The Defendant’s assertion of the additional determination of the trial of the political party is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, since the executives appointed by the resolution of the special meeting of this case have implicitly resigned before the Defendant held the special meeting on July 2, 2016, and thus, the instant lawsuit seeking nullification of the resolution of the special meeting of this case is unlawful.

Although a lawsuit for confirmation is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the current rights or legal status, even in the past legal relations, if the current rights or legal status has been affected, and if it is deemed appropriate to obtain a judgment on confirmation of the legal relations in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions in the present rights or legal status, there is benefit in confirmation.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of final appeal.