1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of the court’s explanation is as follows: “The Defendant Cooperative stated that 858 of the total number of union members was present at the meeting of 1,697,” following the resolution of the special meeting of this case, in addition to adding “the result of holding the general meeting of this case in 2010” to “the result of holding the general meeting of this case,” it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. As such, it is cited by the main sentence of Article

The defendant union's assertion of the judgment on the defense of this safety defense has passed a resolution on "the ratification of the resolution on the agenda of the special general meeting of this case" at the general meeting of April 1, 2012 after the general meeting of this case. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed as there is no benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation on the past legal relations.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above in the agenda items to be selected as a contractor (attached Form 3) and the evidence stated in Gap evidence No. 13, the selection of the contractor by the defendant's association is subject to the resolution of the general meeting after a competitive bidding; the defendant's association decided to select the contractor at the general meeting of this case after the competitive bidding to select the contractor; and the defendant's association ratified the resolution of the selection of the contractor at the general meeting of April 1, 2012, but did not proceed with the new competitive bidding

According to the above facts, both the competitive bidding procedure and the general meeting resolution should be lawful in order to be valid. The plaintiffs are arguing not only the resolution of the general meeting of this case but also the legality of the competitive bidding for the selection of the contractor. Since the defendant union did not go through the new competitive bidding procedure in making the ratification resolution of this case, the plaintiffs still have the interest to dispute about the legality of the competitive bidding.

I would like to say.

Therefore, among the resolution of the special general meeting of this case, the agenda item No. 3 of the attached Table of the item to be selected as the contractor.