1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On September 27, 2010, the Plaintiff made a resolution to modify Article 22, Article 31, Article 32 of the Articles of Incorporation on August 30, 200, Article 8 of the Articles of Incorporation on February 13, 2004, and Article 7 subparag. 2 of the Articles of Incorporation on February 16, 2010. The above resolution by the Defendant’s respective board of directors violates Article 42 of the Civil Act, Article 93(1), (4), (5), and Article 106(3) of the Constitution, and thus, it is necessary to confirm the invalidity of each of the above resolution by the Defendant’s board of directors, notwithstanding the need to pass a resolution by the Defendant’s board of directors in order to amend its articles of incorporation. However, the Defendant’s above resolution was dismissed as follows:

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed as Seoul High Court No. 201Na7636, and the above appellate court rendered an appeal as to ① the above part of the claim, “Article 45, Article 45, Article 45, Article 45 (Modification of Articles of Incorporation of Incorporated Foundation) of the Civil Act regarding the amendment of the Articles of Incorporation of Incorporated Foundation.”

(2) Where it is appropriate to achieve the objectives of the Incorporated Foundation or to preserve its property, the name or location of its office may be changed, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1).

(3) The provisions of Article 42 (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis only to the cases of the preceding two paragraphs. (1) Articles 42 and 42 of the Civil Act shall apply only to the case where the articles of an incorporated association give consent of two thirds or more of all the members.