All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On the grounds of appeal related to the previous defense on the merits, the lower court determined that the seeking confirmation of invalidation as to the agenda items No. 4 of the attached list of the lower court among the instant lawsuit is merely seeking confirmation of past legal relations or legal relationship, and thus there was no benefit in confirmation.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the above judgment of the court below was erroneous, so long as the judgment of the court below on the merits that the special general meeting of this case satisfied the quorum, it is clear that the plaintiffs' claims concerning this part should be dismissed in the merits, and therefore, in this case where only the plaintiffs appealed, it cannot be sentenced to a judgment of dismissing a claim more unfavorable to the plaintiffs in light of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. Thus, the above error of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, this part of the ground of appeal does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it is not accepted without further review.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the merits, the gist of this part of the grounds of appeal is that eight members who were treated as attending the special general meeting of this case were released from the middle, or the written resolution in their names was prepared at will, or were not designated as representative members from other co-owners, and thus, the number of members present should be excluded from the number of members present. Accordingly, the purport of the judgment of the court below and its finding based on

The evaluation of evidence, which is a premise of fact finding and its premise, is within the discretionary power of a fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

In examining the record, the lower court’s fact-finding seems to have erred by exceeding the bounds of reasonable free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.