1. The appeal by the primary defendant is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost shall be borne by the primary defendant.

3. Judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance is dismissed as provided in paragraph (2) above; and (b) the primary defendant’s argument added in the court of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, in addition to adding the judgment as provided in paragraph (3) below; and (c) thus, it is cited

2. On August 22, 2018, the 5th 19 and 20th 5th 20th 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “U has filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the above resolution of the special general meeting (which is currently pending in the first instance trial) against the defendant clan as the Suwon District Court 2018Gahap2052,” which read “U has filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the above resolution of the special meeting as the Suwon District Court 2018Gahap2052 on August 222, 2018, and on January 16, 2020, the above special general meeting was convened by a non-authorized person to the effect that the resolution is null and void on the grounds that there is a serious procedural defect.”

Article 11 of the judgment of the first instance court provides that " insofar as the claims against the primary defendant (the defendant's clan) are received, the claims against the conjunctive defendants (the defendant C, the defendant D, and the defendant E shall not be judged separately) that are inconsistent with the claims shall be rendered a judgment against all co-litigants in the case of preliminary co-litigation (Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act), so long as the claims against the primary defendant are received as above, the claims against the conjunctive defendants that are inconsistent with the above shall be dismissed as they are groundless."

3. Judgment as to the primary defendant's argument added in the trial

A. The defendant clan became the representative of the defendant clan on January 23, 1994, and according to the clan's articles of incorporation, the term of office of executive officers may be three years and they may be reappointed. Since K did not undergo a resolution for reappointment, the term of office has already been renewed.