1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the Selection V shall be revoked;

2. To dismiss the action of the Appointor V.

3...

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to that of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where "G" of Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "D".

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff (appointed party) and the remaining designated parties are not the defendant's members.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation and the plaintiff's right or legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the unstable risk, and the lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity on the resolution at the general assembly of the trade union also has standing to sue as in the case of ordinary confirmations.

However, in the case of this case, as seen later, the plaintiff (appointed party), the Appointor W, and U are recognized as the members of the defendant, but the Appointor V is difficult to be recognized as the members of the defendant.

Thus, the plaintiff (Appointeds), Appointers W, and U shall be deemed to have the interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case. However, the Selections V cannot be deemed to have an unstable risk in rights or legal status due to the resolution of this case, and there is no other ground to deem that there is a benefit in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case beyond the de facto or economic interest to the Selections V.

In the end, the representative's lawsuit is unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense against the plaintiff (appointed party), the Appointed W, and U is not reasonable, but the main defense against the Appointed V is reasonable.

3. This Court shall make a decision on the merits.