1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which partially accepted the reasoning of the judgment, is identical to that of paragraphs (1) and (2) among the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is citing by the main text of Article 42

2. Determination

A. Whether the agenda of this case exceeds the authority of the president to refer to a general meeting, 1) In a case where the members of a clan regularly gather at a certain place on a certain day each year in accordance with the rules or practices of a clan and manage the church affairs of the clan, it is not necessary to convene a separate clan meeting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da36298, Dec. 8, 2005). If the purport of the whole arguments in subparagraph 3 is added to the statement in subparagraph 3 of the same Article, the defendant is the member of a clan every year in accordance with the rules of a clan.

3.1. The general meeting held in the G Jae-gun's Office and held a general meeting to pass a resolution on the company's will of a clan. According to the above recognition, the general meeting held on March 28, 2017 seems not to require a separate convocation procedure.

On March 28, 2017, the regular meeting was held without a separate convocation procedure, and there is no evidence that there was a separate convocation procedure by the defendant's acting president.

Therefore, under the premise that the defendant's acting president and acting president have convened the above general meeting, it cannot be viewed as a general meeting convened by a person who has no authority to do so.

2) Where an acting director is appointed as a provisional disposition against a non-corporate company company, the authority of the acting director is not restricted to the authority of the general assembly of the non-corporate company itself, even if it is restricted to ordinary affairs, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2004Da113, Jan. 29, 2005). Accordingly, as long as the ordinary assembly of March 28, 2017 duly convened and the amendments of the Defendant’s rules are within the jurisdiction of the Defendant’s general assembly (Article 13 of the Defendant’s clan and the Defendant’s acting president).