1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Election Management Regulations" in the fourth and seventh deeds 18 and 2 of the first instance judgment shall be deemed as "former Election Management Regulations (amended by Act No. 1350, Mar. 30, 2017)"; "No. 8" in the fourth and seventh deeds shall be deemed as "No. 23 evidence"; "No. 4 million won out of the partnership expenses to be used for all the union members" in the seventh sentence shall be deemed as "no. 4 million won out of the union expenses paid by all the union members"; and the defendant shall be cited in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as to the defense before the first instance judgment by the whole union members, as stated in the part against the plaintiffs in the reasoning of the first instance judgment.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidation of the instant election is seeking confirmation of the past legal relationship or legal relationship, and that there is no benefit of confirmation, since L, elected as the head of the branch, from the Defendant’s election for the head of the branch (hereinafter “instant election”) on May 7, 2016, resigned from the office of the head of the branch on August 24, 2017, which was after the judgment of the first instance court was rendered.

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the invalidity of the election of this case affects the eligibility of L in the election of the head of the succeeding branch office and the term of office of the head of the succeeding branch office in accordance with the defendant's rules and the election management regulations, even if L has resigned, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is of interest in confirmation.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 27 through 33, Gap evidence No. 38, Eul evidence No. 20-1, and Eul evidence No. 20-1, Article 15(1)4 of the Defendant’s Rules and Article 8 subparag. 4 of the Defendant Election Management Regulations (amended by March 30, 2017; hereinafter the same) provide that “a person for whom five years have not passed since the court’s final judgment was made in relation to an illegal election, employment, or embezzlement of public funds is limited.”