2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was not the instant partnership, could not apply for the authorization for change of the establishment of the association, without receiving an application from the Plaintiff for change of the establishment of the association.

Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks to confirm that the plaintiff is a member of the instant association or has the right to apply for parcelling-out to the association.

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is legitimate or not, the issue of the Plaintiff’s membership and whether the application for parcelling-out has a right is a matter to be resolved between the association in this case, and it cannot be deemed that the judgment against the Defendant has an effect on the association in this case. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including each number), the plaintiff received a decision of recommending reconciliation from the above court that "the plaintiff is a member of the union of this case" in the lawsuit to confirm the status of union members against the union of this case (Seoul District Court 2014Guhap1032) on December 24, 2014, the plaintiff is confirmed as a member of the union of this case. The union of this case confirms that the plaintiff has the right to apply for parcelling-out against the defendant, and confirms that the plaintiff is to be included in the object of parcelling-out according to the written application for parcelling-out submitted by the plaintiff." The plaintiff around April 28, 2015, the union of this case is decided by the above