beta
Text
1. The Defendant confirms that a resolution in which the J General Assembly of May 3, 2015 elected the president as the president is invalid.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, the resolution that changed the rules into the general meeting of 75 representatives at the general meeting of April 1, 2010 by the Defendant was defective in the convocation procedure, such as omitting a notice for convening some of the members, and thus, it is invalid in violation of good morals and other social order.
If so, the general meeting of May 3, 2015 should undergo the procedure for convening a convening notice to all the members who can contact with each other in accordance with the previous rules, but was erroneous in convening a convening notice only to representatives, so the above general meeting of shareholders is null and void.
2. Determination:
A. After the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Da1178 Decided July 21, 2005, which held that adult female members, who are the descendants of the joint ancestor group with the effect of the resolution of the special general meeting on April 1, 2010, are also members of the clan, a notification of convening a clan general meeting shall be given to female members. Thus, in cases where a notification of convening a general meeting is given only to male members and a notification of convening a general meeting is not given to female members, the resolution of the general meeting of the clan shall be null and void.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da34982 Decided September 6, 2007, etc.). In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 9 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant issued a notice of convening the special meeting on April 1, 2010 based on the address and contact address of 171 members whose location is identified, and the above address record was not written at all, and it can be recognized that a female member was not present at the above special meeting, and the defendant did not endeavor to identify the location of the female member because "the address and contact address of the female member was not stated in the previous special meeting was operated mainly by the female member according to the custom," and the defendant did not endeavor to identify the location of the female member.