1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant and arising from the intervention in the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the defendant’s assistant intervenor, except for the dismissal of the following or the addition of the judgment on the main defense of the defendant’s assistant intervenor.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the term “Plaintiff B” and “F”, which are both F, “Plaintiff B” and Dong name.”

At the end of the judgment of the first instance, 2016Da229331, the Supreme Court filed a lawsuit, which is currently pending in the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da22931, and the above court rendered a judgment “the part seeking confirmation of invalidation of the resolution that appointed G as president at the extraordinary general meeting of May 7, 2014, which is dismissed, and all remaining parts are cited.” Accordingly, the Defendant appealed as Seoul High Court 2015Na2061567, but was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal, and the Defendant appealed as the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da22931, but the above judgment became final and conclusive.

In addition, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor is considered to be “the Defendant’s assistant intervenor.” On August 22, 2017, the lower court rendered a decision that “the Defendant’s representative for the president is replaced from V to NA.”

'in addition'.

2. The Defendant Intervenor asserted that the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion that there was no benefit in confirmation, since the Defendant Intervenor elected the Defendant Intervenor as the president and N as the vice president at the Defendant’s extraordinary general meeting held on December 21, 2016 after the instant general meeting, and there was a resolution to delegate the remainder of the officers to the president. As such, the instant general meeting asserts that there was no benefit in confirmation, seeking confirmation of past legal relations.

However, there is no evidence to prove that there was a resolution, as alleged by the Defendant’s Intervenor, at the general meeting of the Defendant held on December 21, 2016, and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor’s agent on the fourth day for pleading after the instant appeal is closed at the date of pleadings after the instant appeal.