1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost is borne by F and G as the representative of the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: (a) the plaintiff's new argument at the trial of the court of first instance is further determined in paragraph (2); and (b) the reasons for the decision at the court of first instance are as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment, except for the case's assumptive determination, and thus, it is decided to

2. Additional and constructive determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) following the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) held an extraordinary general meeting on July 6, 2014; (b) ratified the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting as of May 16, 2010, which was held by F and G as the Plaintiff’s representative; and (c) delegated all the legal acts pertaining to the instant lawsuit to F and G; (b) accordingly, the instant lawsuit was lawful in accordance with the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting as of July 6, 2014; (c) according to the description of the evidence No. 19, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit was in force by the resolution of the extraordinary general meeting as of July 6, 2014; (d) notified 114 members (8 items sent by ordinary mail are not known to the addressee; (e) the weight of mail is diverse; and (e) it is difficult to recognize that the statement of evidence No. 19 alone held the extraordinary general meeting as of July 6, 2014.

However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 6 and 15 evidence, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the witness N of the trial of the political party, namely, that the notice of convening an extraordinary meeting was not given to Defendant E, that M was the co-existent of the Plaintiff, that it appears that M was the representative of the Plaintiff, F, and G convened an extraordinary general meeting. The Plaintiff is a clan already worked in the 1980s, and it is unclear whether M was authorized to call an extraordinary meeting, that it is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s right to call an extraordinary meeting was given to M as a clan registered until September 4, 201, because the Plaintiff’s list and number cannot be known, and it cannot be confirmed whether the Plaintiff’s religious members were notified, and whether the Plaintiff satisfied a quorum is satisfied. Upon the conclusion of the argument in this case, the Plaintiff’s religious members are 387 persons up to April 20, 200.