A. The Plaintiffs were the Defendant’s members established under the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act (hereinafter “Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act”). Around January 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs proposed a dismissal proposal against the Defendant’s president E and auditor F pursuant to Article 43(4) of the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act, and Article 17(3) of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation, and publicly announced the opening of the special meeting.

B. According to the public notice of the foregoing holding, at the special meeting held on February 13, 2020 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”), at the general meeting held on February 13, 2020 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”), at the 37 members present (including a written resolution) and voting by 7 members, with respect to the dismissal of the president of the cooperative, the number of members shall be 35, 2, 36, 36, 1, and 1, respectively, were aggregated with respect to the dismissal of the president of the cooperative, and the resolution to dismiss the president of each Defendant’s association and the auditor (hereinafter “resolution of dismissal”).

(c)

Meanwhile, despite the instant dismissal resolution by the Seoul Western District Court 2020Kahap5017, the Plaintiffs continued to perform the duties of president and auditor, such as interfering with the procedures for selecting new officers and convening a board of directors without authority, against E and F.

On April 20, 2020, the above court accepted the plaintiffs' application on April 20, 202, and rendered a provisional disposition that "E shall not perform the duties as the head of the defendant's partnership, and F shall not perform the duties as the auditor."

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Although the resolution of dismissal of the plaintiffs in this case was lawful and effective without any procedural and substantive defects, they continuously denied the validity of the resolution of dismissal in this case and affect the defendant's business.

Accordingly, according to the dismissal resolution of this case, E is not the defendant's president, and F is not the defendant's auditor.