1. A resolution that is to appoint C as the president at a general meeting of the Defendant on March 10, 2017 or a meeting of the senior directors is null and void.

1. The judgment of this Court

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant, on March 10, 2017, had a long-standing practice in which the president is appointed, opening a general meeting or a meeting of middle-waves and appoints C as the president, by gathering eight representatives of the Defendant on March 10, 2017.

B. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the entries of Eul 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) alone have the above practices, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, if the statement in Eul evidence No. 2 added the purport of the whole argument, the meeting of March 10, 2017 asserted by the defendant cannot be deemed to have been held by the members with legitimate qualifications through due process.

2. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking confirmation is reasonable, since it is apparent that the resolution that appointed C as the Chairperson at the meeting of March 10, 2017 is invalid.