beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the disposition by the court is as follows: (a) since the reasoning for this part is the same as the entry from the second to the third to 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited.
2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. 1) Defect in the process of the inaugural general meeting of this case. The promotion committee of this case disclosed the purpose of the meeting, agenda items, eligibility for attendance, requirements, etc. on the Internet website 14 days before the inaugural general meeting of this case, and did not go through such convocation procedures despite having to send and notify the owners of land, etc. by registered mail.
3) The instant promotion committee asserts that the number of owners of lands, etc., who are anticipated to oppose the resolution at the time of the instant inaugural general meeting is 22 persons, who were the owners of lands, etc., for whom the notice of convening an inaugural general meeting at the time of this case was omitted (section 4 of the preparatory document dated September 16, 2019), ① where there was no notification of convening a meeting is given to the owners of lands, etc., ② where there was a number of co-owners, ② where a notification of convening a meeting was given only to the representative owners despite the change in ownership, ③ where a notification of convening a meeting was issued to the former owners despite the change in ownership of the instant inaugural general meeting, ④ in other cases, etc., the said committee made out the assertion that the notice of convening an 20 owners of lands, etc. was omitted (section 3 of the preparatory document dated 19, 2019). Of these, the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government’s assertion on EL, which was the owner of the instant land
Since the notice of convening a meeting was omitted, the resolution at the inaugural general meeting of this case is null and void, and the disposition in this case is also unlawful.
(b) the consent rate;