1. The part of the instant lawsuit against Defendant E shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' claim against Defendant D's defendant.

1. The summary of Defendant D’s cause of the claim (hereinafter “Defendant D’s text”) is part of the literature consisting of descendants from F’s 29 years old-old G as a middle-level group of G, and Defendant E-W (hereinafter “Defendant E-W”) is part of the literature consisting of descendants from H, the south of the above G.

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs are the key members of the Jingu comprised of three South Koreans of the above G (hereinafter “Jingu”).

Defendant D’s general meeting held on December 19, 2015. Although each of the items listed in the separate sheet at the above general meeting did not have been proposed and its resolution was not made, the Defendants attempted to modify the minutes as if the resolution was made on each of the above items, and to carry out the construction of the family cemetery in Defendant E-mail based on this. The Plaintiffs seek confirmation of the absence of the resolution on each of the items listed in the separate sheet among the resolution of the general meeting of December 19, 2015, against the Defendants.

2. The part of the judgment on the main defense of Defendant E’s main defense is that the subject of the plaintiffs’ non-existence confirmation is a resolution of Defendant E’s text, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the above resolution against Defendant E, not Defendant D’s main defense.

On December 19, 2015, the subject for which the plaintiffs' non-existence is sought is the resolution on each agenda listed in the separate list among the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders dated December 19, 2015 among the defendant D's documents. The plaintiffs have no interest in seeking confirmation of the absence of the above resolution against the defendant E's documents, which are merely subordinate documents other than the defendant D's documents, which are the subject of the above resolution. Thus, the part of the lawsuit

Therefore, the main safety defense of the defendant E-mail is reasonable.

3. We examine the determination of the claim against Defendant D’s written application, and the statement of No. 4-2, No. 5-4, and No. 8-2, No. 4-2, and No. 8 of Defendant D’s written application alone at the ordinary meeting of December 19, 2015.