2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on April 9, 1979 with the purpose of raising and using funds under the Community Credit Cooperatives Act by using six full-time workers.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person who was enrolled in the Plaintiff on August 1, 1979 and served as a managing director on August 1, 1986, and as a former managing director on January 1, 201.

B. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff held a board of directors on February 28, 2013, and resolved on the part of the Intervenor to grant indefinite suspension from office against the Intervenor pursuant to Article 46(1)2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 11, and 13 of the Personnel Regulations on the ground of the Intervenor’s misconduct described below. On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an indefinite suspension from office against the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant suspension from office”).

(2) On December 21, 201, the first intervenor of the Disciplinary Reason No. 1 met with “D” restaurant using the Plaintiff’s candidate C electoral campaign protocol with the Plaintiff’s president E and F, etc. (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 1”) around December 21, 201.

(2) After the end of the board of directors on January 7, 2012, 2012, the 2 intervenor repeated the words “the Plaintiff’s employees and the members of the board of directors at the H restaurant located in Seopopopo City G on several occasions, such as the Plaintiff’s employees and the chief of the board of directors, among the Dopos,” and participated in the election by engaging in any act affecting the election (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”).

(2) On January 14, 2012, the third intervenor neglected to encourage the attendance of the meeting, and neglected to perform his/her duties, thereby causing enormous monetary damage (cost 5,462,110 won) to the Plaintiff, thereby undermining the Plaintiff’s trust (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”), even though the 89 members were in the vicinity of the meeting place, at the time of the ordinary general meeting, even though they were in the vicinity of the building (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”).

(1) On January 17, 2012, the fourth intervenor discarded the minutes of the ordinary meeting (public documents) without permission (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 4”) (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 4”).

5 An intervenor is a participant on April 2, 2012.