A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association which was established for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project with the aim of implementing the housing reconstruction project to "Yansan-si Member C Day" and which was approved by the mayor of Ansan-si on July 24, 2009.

B. On August 23, 2016, the Defendant was appointed as the president of the Plaintiff’s association, and was dismissed on April 19, 2017 through a resolution of dismissal at an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant resolution of dismissal”).

C. Even after the resolution of dismissal of this case, the Defendant attempted to perform the duties of the president of the partnership, and accordingly, filed an application for provisional disposition against the Defendant, D, and E seeking suspension of the performance of duties and appointment of proxy.

(U) On June 29, 2017, the first instance court dismissed the above application, but the appellate court revoked the first instance court's decision on November 7, 2017 and rejected the Defendant's execution of duties until it declares the absence of the status of the president of the Plaintiff Union until it declares the case of confirming the absence of the status of the president of the Plaintiff Union.

(Seoul High Court 2017Ra329). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Article 15(3) of the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Union provides that an officer whose term of office expires shall perform his/her duties until his/her successor is appointed.

This is, by analogying the provisions of Article 691 of the Civil Code, stipulated in the articles of incorporation, to the effect that the former officer imposes an urgent duty to perform his/her duties to protect the plaintiff even after the termination of delegation relationship, and once the duties performed are individually and specifically based on an exceptional basis to recognize its validity after the termination of the term of office, not a provision allowing the former officer to exercise his/her right to perform duties comprehensively after the termination

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da74817 delivered on July 8, 2003, etc.). B.

Judgment

1. From April 24, 2017 to February 26, 2018, the Defendant’s payment, food expenses, marketing expenses, and health insurance for the head of the cooperative after the resolution of dismissal of the instant case was passed.