2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant Cooperative is the Housing Redevelopment Cooperative established on January 16, 2006 with the authorization of July 8, 2003 to promote a housing redevelopment project in the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in accordance with the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the Plaintiff is a person appointed as the president of the Defendant Cooperative as the acting president of the Plaintiff Cooperative on March 15, 2014 and performed his duties.

B. On October 20, 2014, G, a member of the Defendant Union, proposed a dismissal proposal with 18 other members of the Plaintiff, and announced the opening of the special meeting. Accordingly, on November 5, 2014, at the special meeting held on the second floor in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant Union adopted a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff from the association’s acting director (hereinafter “instant dismissal resolution”) with the content of the affirmative votes of 64, opposing votes, invalidation, and three powers, among the 67 members present (including written resolution).

C. After the resolution of dismissal of the instant case, G continued to appoint members H as a new president of the association in the form of other discussions, and thereafter H was in charge of the meeting and appointed I, J, and K as an election management member of the Defendant Union.

On December 22, 2014, the Defendant Union held an extraordinary general meeting for the election of union officers on the second floor of Jongno-gu Seoul E community Service Center, and passed a resolution to select the president of the Union, audit and inspection M, N, directors K,O, P, G, and H (hereinafter “instant resolution to elect executive officers”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 16, 17, 32, 33, 34, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the main safety resistance is the person who became a member of the defendant's association on the ground that the plaintiff owned a building without permission on Qua ground in Jongno-gu Seoul, and the above building was removed and the plaintiff lost its membership. Thus, the plaintiff is no longer the plaintiff.