2. The defendant confirmed that the resolution of expulsion on February 26, 2006 against the plaintiff was null and void.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 13, Eul evidence 14, and Eul evidence 14.

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a sports organization under the Korea Sports Council established under the National Sports Promotion Act, and the plaintiff was the managing director of the defendant ○○ Branch.

B. Disposition of expulsion against the plaintiff

(1) On January 24, 2006, the Defendant’s Legislative Punishment Committee (hereinafter “Committee”) held the first meeting of the Committee in 2006 at the meeting of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5, a vice-chairperson of the Committee, and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 15 subparag. 2, subparag. 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the Committee’s Regulation on the grounds that the Plaintiff committed the misconduct of defamation against the Defendant and the Defendant’s executive officers as follows.

Grounds for Disciplinary Action

The plaintiff

(A) around August 2004, Nonparty 5, the managing director of Defendant △△ branch, received advertising fees and the dances sports newspaper subscription fees from Nonparty 5, but did not comply with the commitments such as the preparation of advertising text or the distribution of newspapers, thereby taking personal benefits or causing water using the franchise position;

(B) On November 18, 2005, the Incheon Metropolitan City Sports Association stated that it shall hold a position on the member bulletin board, etc. on November 18, 2005, and assumes the qualification of the president at the time of the Incheon Metropolitan City Sports Association Sports Association, the report at the general meeting of Defendant ○○ branch in 2006, the training association for athletes, and the defendant general

(C) On the Daegu Gyeonggi-gu Sports Association website, a notice was posted to spread negative perceptions on executives such as Defendant and Defendant Secretary-General, such as “the franchising of the franchisium and position without due process or regulation, and reflecting personal opinions,” and on November 11, 2005, a notice was posted to the Defendant’s free bulletin board on the Defendant’s website that “the franchisium and position should be removed without due process or regulation,” and that “the franchising of the franchisium should be clear that the Defendant is not an organization that is operated as he thought or that is operated in some persons’ consideration,” thereby spreading false information on the type of the Defendant’s operation;

(D) On November 14, 2005, the secretary general and the employees of the Secretariat recommended the Defendant to repair and dismiss the resignation of the secretary general and the secretariat, and around November 2005, the Korea Sports Council sent to the Korea Sports Council a certificate of content that it is necessary to confirm the fact that it is necessary to confirm the Defendant, and made an inquiry to the effect that the Defendant would request a definite diagnosis on the bulletin board of the Korea Sports Council’s civil petition.

(2) On February 11, 2006, the Plaintiff requested a review to the commission. However, on February 16, 2006, the commission held a second legislative punishment committee in 2006 when Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 4 attended, and decided not to approve the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff requested a review after seven days from the date of notification of the result of the disciplinary action.

C. Report on disciplinary action against the defendant board

(1) On February 26, 2006, the Defendant held the second board of directors on February 26, 2006. Nonparty 1, the secretary general, resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff as a social member, and reported to the effect that the Plaintiff’s objection was not approved and the resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff became final and conclusive by the above board of directors’ report.

(2) On February 27, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact that “the Defendant made a decision on the expulsion of the Plaintiff in 2006 at the Legislative Punishment Committee, and the expulsion was made by the board of directors on February 26, 2006.”

D. The provisions of the Defendant’s Legislation and Punishment Committee (amended on January 17, 2006 and enforced on the same day) related to the instant case are as follows.

Article 5 (Organization)

(1) The Committee shall be comprised of not more than one chairperson, one vice chairperson, and not more than six members in total.

Article 6 (Operation) This Committee shall be operated as follows:

2. The Committee shall be convened when the chairperson deems it necessary;

3. The Committee shall be held at least 2/3 of its incumbent members present and pass resolutions with the concurrent vote of at least 2/3 of those present.

Article 14 (Categories of Disciplinary Action)

(1) Disciplinary actions shall be classified as follows, depending on the degree of misconduct:

1. The heavy disciplinary action shall be composed of suspension of qualifications, suspension of withdrawal or expulsion;

2. The minor disciplinary action shall be a warning and probation; and

(2) Disciplinary actions against any act disturbing order in the stadium in the competition shall be taken in accordance with the disciplinary regulations for such act disturbing order in the stadium during the competition.

Article 15 (Those Subject to Disciplinary Action) The Committee may examine disciplinary action in any of the following cases:

1. Where it is reported or referred to an offense;

2. When it is judged that the status of this Federation is seriously infringed or it interferes with the development of dancing sports;

3. Where it is deemed impossible to conduct a normal project due to a dispute between executives, financial deterioration, absence of executive organs, etc.

4. If he/she has intentionally or by negligence caused a serious accident, or caused a disturbance in the business of the franchise, or a serious damage to the franchise;

5. Where he/she has crashed or disturbed the authority of a franchise-related meeting, such as noise and abusive language, at a board of directors or general meeting;

6. Where he commits an act of slandering the Internet, propaganda, inciting, or distributing false facts, or prepares for it in advance, with the intention of impairing the honor of this association and executive officers;

9. If he/she takes, or causes water to, an individual's interest by taking advantage of a position of the franchise regardless of the objectives and activities of the franchise;

Article 18 (Exclusion and Challenge) Any person who is a relative of a discipline accused person, a relative of such person, or a person who is related to the grounds for the disciplinary action shall not participate in the examination and resolution of the disciplinary case.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Claim on procedural defect

(A) The instant expulsion disposition is null and void due to the following procedural defects.

① Nonparty 1’s secretary general related to the instant disciplinary cause was involved in the resolution of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and the report of disciplinary action to the board of directors.

② The commission sent the Plaintiff’s request for attendance to the head of the agency to which the Plaintiff was affiliated, and the commission should have received the Plaintiff’s request for the extension of attendance, but the commission dismissed the request prior to the date of the disciplinary deliberation. The instant disciplinary action was conducted without requesting and submitting written answers, etc. to the Plaintiff. Despite the Plaintiff’s request, the commission deprived the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to make statements and the opportunity to submit evidence, and the Plaintiff could not file a request for exclusion and challenge of the statutory disciplinary committee members by failing to inform the Plaintiff of the identity of the requester in advance.

③ The Defendant issued a notice of convening a board of directors only for a part of the directors and held a board of directors related to disciplinary action, and rejected the Plaintiff’s legitimate request for reexamination.

④ The instant disciplinary action was taken in accordance with Article 14(1) of the former Regulations of the Korean Amateur and Punishment Committee (amended by January 17, 2006), which provides that “The instant disciplinary action shall take effect by reporting the matters subject to disciplinary action to the board of directors against Article 23(1) and (4) of the Regulations of the Amateur and Punishment Committee (amended by January 17, 2006) that stipulate that the

(B) The assertion about substantive defect

① The Plaintiff was subject to non-party 5’s disposition of suspicion of receiving money and valuables from Nonparty 5, and as a result of the investigation, it was revealed that the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff. In relation to the misrepresentation of qualification as executive officers, the Defendant executives used the same in combination or parallel with the position of the head of the branch office, the president, or the managing director and the vice-president without strict distinction. Since the Plaintiff was appointed as vice-chairperson from the Incheon Sports Association after then, it is inappropriate to regard the Plaintiff as grounds for disciplinary action. The act of posting a letter on the bulletin board of the Korea Sports Council or recommending the Defendant to repair and remove a letter to the employees of the secretariat, including the secretary general, does not constitute defamation or interference with business as a constructive proposal for the Defendant’s proper development. Therefore, there is no ground for disciplinary action in this case.

② Even if a cause for disciplinary action exists, the instant expulsion disposition against the Plaintiff constitutes an abuse of the right of disciplinary action, and thus, is null and void.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Since the main disciplinary cause of this case is defamation against the defendant and misrepresentation of the plaintiff's officer, it is not directly related to Nonparty 1, and there is no fact that Nonparty 1 filed a complaint against the plaintiff as a victim of defamation, etc., and thus, Nonparty 1 cannot be deemed as a person related to the disciplinary cause of this case, and thus, the disciplinary action of this case does not become null and void even if he participated in the resolution for expulsion

In addition, the expulsion resolution of this case was made according to legitimate procedures, and the grounds of the disciplinary action is not only recognized, but also appropriate.

3. Determination

Therefore, Article 18 of the Rules of the Defendant’s Legislation and Punishment Committee provides that “No person who is a relative of a discipline accused person, or is a relative of, or is related to, the disciplinary person shall participate in the deliberation and resolution of the disciplinary case.” The above provision provides that a person who is related to the disciplinary cause shall be excluded from all of the disciplinary committee members in order to guarantee fair and reasonable disciplinary right, and the disciplinary committee members shall be excluded from the execution of their duties, and the exercise of the right to disciplinary action against the person who is related to the disciplinary cause shall be excluded from the execution of their duties, as a matter of course, regardless of whether the disciplinary cause is recognized.” The person who is related to the disciplinary cause refers to, instead, the victim of the cause of the disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da59882, Apr. 28, 1995).

In this case, according to the above, it is evident that the grounds of the disciplinary action of this case include the fact that the plaintiff took advantage of the defendant's position or caused water to be a person, that the plaintiff misrepresented as an executive officer, and that the defendant has damaged the defendant's reputation and interfered with his duties, and it is also included in defamation against the non-party 1, the secretary general. Thus, the non-party 1 is a victim of the grounds of the disciplinary action of this case who is related to the grounds of the disciplinary action of this case, and thus, he cannot participate in the disciplinary procedure of this case pursuant to the above

Therefore, the resolution of expulsion of this case, which was made by Nonparty 1 by attending the resolution of disciplinary action and reexamination of this case, and participated in the procedure of reporting the resolution of disciplinary action to the board of directors, shall be deemed to have a serious procedural defect. Thus, the remaining procedural and substantive defect asserted by the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be null and void without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted as reasonable, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the confirmation that the resolution of expulsion of this case is null and void.

Judges Lee Il-young (Presiding Judge)