1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties are members of “G,” and the Defendant Union held a general assembly on December 29, 2006 and made a resolution to change the name to “G” and to succeed to the previous Defendant Union, and appointed H as its representative.

However, even though the Defendant Union did not hold an extraordinary general meeting on July 8, 201, it did not have held it, the Defendant Union appointed C as the director and the representative director of the Defendant Union, and D as the auditor of the Defendant Union, and even though it did not hold an extraordinary general meeting on May 14, 2012, appointed E as the director and the director of the Defendant Union and the F as the auditor of the Defendant Union, respectively. On February 14, 2014, which was called by C without the authority to call an extraordinary general meeting, the Defendant Union subsequently appointed C as the representative director of the Defendant Union, and thus, sought confirmation of the invalidity

2. Ex officio determination

A. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation, it is acknowledged that a person who has the interest in confirmation as to the claim has standing to sue, and that a person who has an objection to such confirmation has standing to sue, and that the benefit of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to determine as a judgment to remove the plaintiff's legal status when there is dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation and the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous.

C. As to the instant case, the Plaintiff and the designated parties, as members of G, dispute over the legal relationship of the Defendant Union on the premise that the Defendant Union is substantially G. In order to recognize that there is an opposing interest in the confirmation, G is a juristic person succeeding to the Defendant Union, which is a juristic person succeeding to the Defendant Union, and should be presumed to be the same in fact as the Defendant Union.

However, G succeeded to the defendant association.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that an association is in fact the same.