1. The Defendant’s resolution on July 16, 2015 at the extraordinary general meeting of July 16, 2015 confirms that the resolution is null and void.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an incorporated association composed of automobile management businessmen of Gyeonggi-do pursuant to Article 67 of the Automobile Management Act, and the plaintiffs are the automobile management businessmen of Gyeonggi-do, and the defendant is the members of Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. and the partner company contract is concluded

B. On February 29, 2012, the Defendant held the 29th regular meeting and passed a resolution on other matters stating that “Tong Fire is operated as a means to maximize its own interests under the name of operating the cooperative factory system for the borrower, and thereby promoting the division of the maintenance industry and the disadvantage and management deterioration of the majority of its members, thereby opposing the Samsung Fire Cooperation Factory system, and that in the future, Samsung Fire Cooperation Company in a union will not be partnership officers (director and representative) and signed thereon.”

(hereinafter referred to as “advance resolution”). C.

1) The plaintiffs asserted that there is a defect in the prior resolution that the matters not mentioned as the subject matter of the meeting notice were resolved, and filed a lawsuit to nullify the resolution of the Suwon District Court 2014Gahap5657 against the defendant. On December 9, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the defendant that "the prior resolution was invalid against the prior resolution, and the defendant was not subject to the procedures under Articles 24 subparagraph 1, 25 (1), and 39 of the Articles of Incorporation regarding the amendment of the articles of incorporation, even though the defendant, in fact, did not go through the procedures under Articles 24 subparagraph 1, 25 (1), and 39 of the articles of incorporation regarding the amendment of the articles of incorporation, and the defendant did not deprive or limit the eligibility of the executives of the association on the grounds of the above resolution." Accordingly, the defendant appealed (Seoul High Court 2014Na20521422, Feb. 24, 2015).