The defendant's meeting of February 7, 2019 confirms that the resolution presented by the plaintiff is null and void.

The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Determination on the claim for nullification of the expulsion

A. The defendant's assertion on this safety defense (hereinafter "the defendant's presentation") asserts that even if the defendant's presentation was made by the defendant's academic council, the plaintiff's academic freedom, occupational choice, and freedom of association are not infringed since the plaintiff's continued to engage in his/her activities. In addition, the defendant's resolution at the defendant's academic council is not the final decision-making of the defendant's academic council, but merely the pre-decision-making procedure of the president's final decision-making, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for

In the litigation of confirmation, “the benefit of confirmation” is recognized at the time of being rendered a judgment of confirmation as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the concerns and risks existing in the rights or legal status of the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da1264, Oct. 11, 1991). According to each of the evidence Nos. 2, 8, 9, and 10, the general board of directors of the defendant academic council resolved on February 8, 2019, and the defendant academic council announced the plaintiff on its website on February 11, 2019 that the plaintiff is “former expulsion.” This cannot be deemed as having no benefit of confirmation since there is no benefit of confirmation since there is an existing apprehension and risk in the legal status of the plaintiff as to the possibility of re-acquisition of membership of the defendant academic council in the future.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, Article 15 of the Rules of the defendant Student Association can be acknowledged as the fact that "if a member of this Student Association commits an act contrary to the purpose of this Student Association or an act detrimental to reputation or dignity, he/she may be expelled by the chairperson following a resolution of the board of directors." However, the above wording alone is not sufficient to deem that the chairperson of the defendant Student Association has the ultimate authority to decide whether to dismiss the defendant Student Association beyond the external representative of the defendant Student Association, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the resolution of the board of directors is made.