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. From the first instance court to the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of invalidity of the resolution to elect executives and representatives at the ordinary general meeting of shareholders on April 24, 2014 and confirmation of invalidity of the resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff at the ordinary meeting of shareholders on April 25, 2015. The first instance court accepted only the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

In this regard, the defendant only appealed against the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the expulsion resolution, which is subject to the judgment of this court, is limited to the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the expulsion resolution.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows 3-A. The 8th court's ruling of the first instance is based on the following 3-A.

under section 3(b) of title 8, 3 to 5.0

In addition to each appeal in each paragraph, it is identical to the statement of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. The part to be mard; and

(a) Of the accusation No. 7 above, the charge of violating the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas (Refusal of Inspection and Copying of Documents, etc.) was convicted;

B. Fifth, the complaint No. 1 stated earlier is filed by the Plaintiff on the ground of occupational breach of trust, etc. that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of obstacles with a non-licensed company as well as other members, but the down payment was not paid, and the complaint was withdrawn. The complaint No. 3 stated that the Plaintiff sent a postal item that the Plaintiff defames D members, and then filed a complaint by defamation. The complaint No. 4 stated that the Plaintiff’s attempt to change the management entity of rearrangement projects violates Article 24(1)7 and Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act, by notifying D et al. of the termination of the contract without a general meeting’s resolution. Thus, the complaint No. 3 and No. 4 stated above was filed on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 24(1)7 and 85 subparag. 5 of the Act.