2. The plaintiff's defendants who correspond to the above revocation part.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants were residents of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment, and the Plaintiff was elected as the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives during the 9th period (term: from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2018) at the election held on March 11, 2016, and the Defendants were elected as the pertinent Dong representative, and were elected as the said representative.

B. Defendant B asserted that the above election is invalid due to the illegality of the election campaign, ballot counting procedure, etc. of the former representative on the election day. On April 19, 2016, Defendant B filed an application against the Plaintiff for provisional disposition of suspending the performance of duties as Seoul Northern District Court 2016Kahap20070.

On June 23, 2016, the above court dismissed the application on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts alleged by Defendant B, the applicant, or that there is no material defect in the ballot counting process to the extent that the election is invalidated even if there is a certain defect.

Defendant B filed an appeal with Seoul High Court No. 2016Ra20851 on the above decision, but withdrawn the appeal on September 21, 2016.

C. On May 16, 2016, the Defendants submitted an agenda, such as the Plaintiff’s dismissal, the dismissal of all election management members (this agenda was submitted by Defendant C). The Plaintiff did not supplement the specific grounds for dismissal at the occupant representative meeting held on May 23, 2016. As seen above, the court’s decision of suspending the performance of duties was in progress, and all election management members were not presented as an agenda on the ground that there is no ground for the dismissal of all election management members.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff interfered with the duties of the representative on the agenda by force, and filed a complaint against the Plaintiff under suspicion of interference with the duties.

On September 27, 2016, the above accusation case was issued by an investigative agency with a non-prosecution disposition on September 27, 2016 after the investigation of the complainant and the accused.

The Defendants again submitted the same proposal to dismiss the Plaintiff at the tenant representative meeting held on June 20, 2016, but the Plaintiff is a personal attack or repeated proposal.