2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the cost of supplementary participation.

A. The defendant is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) for the purpose of implementing a housing redevelopment improvement project in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H TW 39,128 square meters, and the plaintiff A is the head of the association of the defendant, and the plaintiff B is the person who has

B. A resolution of holding and dismissing the general meeting of this case 1) The Defendant’s assistant intervenor on behalf of 70 members who account for at least 1/10 of all the Defendant’s 448 members under Article 23(4) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for the removal of Plaintiff A as the first agenda, and proposed a convocation of an extraordinary general meeting consisting of the removal of Plaintiff B as the second agenda. Accordingly, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting on April 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”).

2) According to the general meeting minutes of this case, according to the general meeting minutes of this case, 248 among the 448 members of the Defendant’s entire association (the number calculated by subtracting 50 members, who are directly present after submitting the written resolution from total 298 members who submitted the written resolution), 317 members, including 69 members directly present, were present, and the majority of the members present (284 with respect to the first agenda, 283 members with respect to the second agenda), the Plaintiff-B from the partnership head, and the Plaintiff-B from the auditor, respectively, are stated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 16, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s assertion by the parties concerned asserts that, since an ordinary general meeting was held in 2014 in accordance with legitimate procedures after the instant general meeting and an auditor was newly appointed, seeking confirmation of invalidation of the instant general meeting is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

As to this, the Plaintiffs’ resolution to dismiss the Plaintiffs at the instant general meeting is null and void, and therefore does not constitute the requirement to designate an acting director.