1. We affirm that a resolution of the ordinary meeting of shareholders on each agenda listed in the separate sheet dated November 12, 2013 by the defendant is null and void.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a clan that raised E, the grandchildren of C 4 South D, and the plaintiff is a member of the defendant's clan.

B. The Defendant’s bylaws stipulate that the annual meeting shall be held on October 10, 2010, and the Defendant sent the direction at the tombate E located in Gwangju-si on November 12, 2013, the date of the year 2013.

C. From November 12, 2013 to 08:30 on November 12, 2013, the minutes (Evidence No. 13, No. 3) stating that the Defendant made a resolution (hereinafter “instant resolution”) as to each item on the agenda indicated in the separate sheet between 34 members (including five members present during the meeting) (including five members present during the meeting) and 10:00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 13 (the same as the evidence No. 3) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On November 12, 2013, the Defendant did not hold a general meeting of shareholders or make a resolution of this case.

Even if the resolution of this case was made on November 12, 2013, there is a procedural defect that G, not the chairperson of the defendant, proceeds.

Therefore, the resolution of this case is null and void.

B. An organization bears the burden of proof as to the existence of a decision-making group resolution itself if there is a dispute over the existence of a decision-making group resolution

(See Supreme Court Decision 208Da37193 Decided July 22, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da37193, Nov. 12, 2010). In light of the following circumstances, the evidence No. 13 is insufficient to recognize that the instant resolution was itself made on November 12, 2013, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the resolution of this case is nonexistent, and as long as the defendant contests the validity of the resolution of this case, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

The plaintiff is entitled to the resolution of this case.