1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be M.

purport.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since M is not a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff, the resolution of the Dong Representatives’ Meeting on June 28, 2012, which elected M as the Plaintiff’s representative, and the resolution of the Dong Representatives’ Meeting on June 11, 2013.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 40-1 and 2-2, in the Daejeon High Court Resolution 2013Na4324, which was filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the said court rendered a ruling on Oct. 16, 2014 that “the resolution (hereinafter “instant prior ruling”) selected as the Plaintiff’s president at each Dong representative conference dated Jun. 28, 2012 and June 11, 2013 to confirm that the resolution, etc. selected as the Plaintiff’s president (hereinafter “instant resolution”) is null and void” (hereinafter “instant prior ruling”), and the Supreme Court appealed the Plaintiff as Supreme Court Decision 2014Da73497, but the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal due to a non-trial hearing on February 12, 2015, thereby recognizing the facts that the instant prior ruling became final and conclusive on Feb. 23, 2015.

In a case where the legal relationship in which the res judicata effect of a previous suit is in effect becomes a prior legal relationship in the subsequent suit, the court of the subsequent suit cannot render a judgment inconsistent with the judgment rendered before the previous suit because the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da55472 delivered on February 25, 2000). Whether the resolution of this case, which is the contents of the preceding judgment, is null and void is a preemptive legal relationship, which serves as the premise for determining whether M is entitled to represent the plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case raised by M claiming that M was elected as the chairperson of the plaintiff in accordance with the resolution of this case.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff shall have res judicata effect on the judgment of this case, and the court of this case shall not make any decision different from the judgment of this case.

The plaintiff judged that the prior judgment of this case is unfair because it applied the procedures stipulated in the self-governing management rules that are null and void.