1. A resolution to appoint C as the president at an extraordinary general meeting on December 20, 2015, and a resolution to appoint D as the auditor, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a clan that is the 11-year-old member of the F, that is the 4-year-old member of G, the H of which is the 11-year-old member, and the plaintiff is the member of the defendant clan.

B. On December 20, 2015, Defendant clan held an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) at the IO building at a female city, and passed a resolution to appoint C as the president, J and D respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, the result of the video verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's argument that the defendant clan made a resolution to appoint C as the chairperson, E, and D respectively from the extraordinary general meeting of this case, and each of the above resolutions is invalid due to the following defects:

C and D are disqualified for being elected in accordance with the articles of incorporation of the defendant clan.

The special general meeting of this case was conducted with a notice of convening only to some members of the defendant clan, and the number of the members of the defendant clan who supported each of the above resolutions is too less than the total number of the members.

In addition, even though only some of the members of the clan present at the special general meeting of this case consented to the above resolution, the defendant clan passed each of the above resolutions without specifically compiling opposing members.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the fact that the defendant clan made a resolution to appoint Eul from the extraordinary general meeting of this case to the chairperson, the J and D as auditors, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant clan made a resolution to appoint Eul from the extraordinary general meeting of this case to the auditor.

Since there is no resolution that appoints E from the extraordinary general meeting of this case as an auditor, this part of the assertion seeking invalidation against the non-existent resolution is rejected.

B. Regarding C’s appointment resolution and D’s appointment resolution, Gap evidence No. 2, the court’s video verification result and the purport of the entire pleadings.