1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) The defendant held an extraordinary general meeting on March 30, 2018 and resolved to oppose E to hold a meeting in F by voting on the "case related to the admission to the village conference to E".

Although the above resolution was made, the Defendant decided to hold an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant extraordinary general meeting”) on July 26, 2018 to refer “G consent” to the residents’ voting.

In accordance with the resolution of the special general meeting of this case, the residents' voting held on July 28, 2018 (hereinafter "the voting of this case") was decided as 385 votes, 62 votes, and 2 votes with respect to the above agenda.

Accordingly, the defendant has expressed his intention to hold E in F.

(2) However, the instant special meeting violated Articles 5(2) and 6(4) of the A Village to the extent that there is no date of birth, the date of transferring A Village, the date of occupational soldiers, etc. on the list of persons requesting the convocation of the special meeting, and thus, is seriously erroneous in the convocation procedure.

The residents' voting of this case, which has been resolved at the extraordinary general meeting of this case with a significant error, is null and void in itself.

In addition, the voting of this case is null and void since it violated the duty of neutrality of a person who takes charge of voting affairs, such as distributing a leaflet where the chairperson of the defendant who takes charge of voting affairs of this case requests consent on the agenda of the voting of this case, even though the information of this case was left without the debate procedure and infringed the right to know and the right to participate in the voting of the residents of A, which should have gone through the sufficient period of public announcement.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The gist of the defendant's assertion asserts that the residents' voting of this case does not have any relation to the rights or legal status of the residents of A, including the plaintiffs, and therefore there is no benefit to seek nullification thereof.

B. (1) A lawsuit for confirmation must be filed.