beta
Text
1. A resolution at an extraordinary general meeting held by the Defendant on August 11, 2012 shall be confirmed as null and void.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a fishing village fraternity established under the Fisheries Cooperatives Act with the status of the party concerned as the area of the 198 members, which consists of 98 members, and all the plaintiffs are the members of the Defendant.
B. In the event of oil pollution accident, the collision between ships at the sea of six days in the south, South, west-west, west-west, and the area of the oil tanker BA (hereinafter “oil tanker”) occurred (hereinafter “instant accident”). Due to the instant accident, the instant accident caused damage, such as the death of the digging in four digging plantations (TC, BD, BE, BF, hereinafter “instant plantation”) located in the west-gun BB and the removal of the facilities.
C. 1) On the application of the oil tanker shipowner’s shipowner, the procedures for limiting liability began as Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2008 Book1, and the Defendant reported the amount of damage incurred to the fish farm of this case as limited claims. The limited liability court decided to assess the amount of the Defendant’s limited claims as the amount indicated in the column of “determined Amount” in attached Table No. 135, No. 165, 175, 175, 236, 237, 238, 239, and the oil tanker owner and the Oil Pollution Damage Compensation International Fund (hereinafter “International Fund”) in 192.
(2) On December 29, 2014, the above court filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the above assessment judgment (Seoul District Court Seosan Branch 2013Gahap637, etc.). (2) On December 29, 2014, the above court acknowledged the Defendant’s limited claim amount as stated in the [Attachment 135, 165, 175, 236, 237, 238, and 239 “reconciliation recommendation amount” as stated in the [Attachment 135, 165, 236, 237, 238, and 239. However, the court made a decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”) to distribute it to the athletes according to the ratio of the amount by the person who exercised the individual verification report of circumstance. Accordingly, the above decision of recommending reconciliation was around that time.