All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the part corresponding to the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the 12th of the judgment of the first instance, “ difficult” is followed by “(The Plaintiffs cannot recognize the probative value of the transcript of the special meeting of this case on the grounds that there are different supporting votes, dissenting votes, coupons, invalid votes and invalid votes for each of the eight items presented at the general meeting of this case.”

However, according to the statements in Section B-1 to Section B-34, some of the members who cast votes at the instant special meeting is confirmed to have cast a selective vote on the eight agenda items proposed at the instant special meeting, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit).

The following shall be added to the 12th judgment of the first instance following the 9th judgment:

[F] According to the statement in the list of direct ballot papers compiled by the Defendant (No. 34 evidence No. 34), the Plaintiffs are merely 1,060 members who cast direct votes at the instant special meeting, and even if the written resolution contains 20 members, the total number of the members who participated in the voting did not meet the quorum for the intention of the special meeting, since 1,080 members who participated in the voting, are included therein.

The argument is asserted.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant’s direct voting paper compiled based on the field voting paper prepared by members at the time of the instant extraordinary general meeting.

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the Plaintiffs received and confirmed the field voting paper that the Defendant had been in custody for about eight years after the date eight years elapsed from the date of the instant special meeting, and that it is about 1,060 copies, the direct voting paper calculation table was prepared voluntarily in the process of preparing pleadings based on the field voting paper kept by the Defendant during the instant lawsuit.

that is deemed to be.