All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

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

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the allegations added by the Defendants in this court, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants’ assertion was sentenced to a judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there was a defect that did not go through the same requirements and procedures as the authorization for the establishment of a partnership in a claim for sale and purchase lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against those who did not consent to the establishment of a partnership (Seoul District Court Seo-gu District Court Decision 2016Gahap51614, etc., hereinafter “related case”), and there was no validity of the authorization for the establishment of a partnership, and that no claim for sale based

Therefore, in order to resume the procedure for the resolution on the change of the establishment of an association, the plaintiff publicly announced the opening of the 2020 ordinary general meeting of the association as the case of the request for consent to the establishment of the association and the application for the authorization of the establishment of the association.

However, since the defendants do not consent to the resolution of change in the establishment of the association, they lose their membership and have the status of cash clearing agent.

In addition, in related cases, since the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the establishment authorization disposition is void as a matter of course, all follow-up actions such as the establishment of a project implementation plan and the establishment of a management and disposal plan are

Therefore, the Defendants are members of the Plaintiff, and cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the establishment authorization disposition of this case is valid.

B. In full view of the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 3 through 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff shall be the head of the Gu on February 15, 2016.