1. The Defendant confirms that a resolution on the agenda item No. 6, which was made at the Assembly of the Parties on July 10, 2015, is null and void.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant Union held an extraordinary general meeting on July 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) and passed a resolution on each item on the agenda indicated in the separate sheet. In relation to the agenda item 6 (cases of appointment of executive officers of the Association), Plaintiff A was the head of the association, and Plaintiff B was the head of the association, and Plaintiff B was the head of the association.

B. Each of the items stated in the attached Table at the instant assembly was resolved, and among the candidates for the president of the partnership, D was elected as the head of the partnership with the total of 244 votes (45 persons present at the instant general assembly, 199 persons present at the written resolution), and the Plaintiff A was selected as the head of the association with the total of 207 votes (60 marks present at the instant general assembly and 147 marks), and the Plaintiff A was selected as the head of the association, and among the 18 directors, Plaintiff B was selected with the total of 156 marks (35 persons present at the instant general assembly, 121 persons).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 7, and Eul No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' arguments asserted that the resolution on each item of agenda in the separate sheet, which was made by the general meeting of this case, is null and void on the grounds that there are significant defects in the following grounds:

1) As the president of a general meeting convened by an unauthorized person, D who convened the instant general meeting, and held D, which failed to apply for parcelling-out within the period for filing an application for parcelling-out within the period for filing an application for parcelling-out, loses its membership pursuant to Article 11(2) of the Articles of the Defendant Union’s articles of association, which referred to as “a person who did not apply for parcelling-out within the period for filing an application for parcelling-out shall lose its membership.” The recovery of the membership’s status is a change in the qualification of the union members and only applied for an ordinary change to the Defendant Union around 2014 without undergoing such procedures, even though it is necessary to modify the articles of association, and thus is disqualified for membership. (2) In the event of convening the general meeting, Article 20(7) of the