1. The plaintiff shall dismiss the lawsuit against the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Incheon Metropolitan City Commercial Group;

2. Preliminary.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a member of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Commercial Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Preliminary Defendant Association”) and the Preliminary Defendant Preliminary Branch (hereinafter referred to as the “Preliminary Branch”).

B. (1) The Gamball Association of Gwangju Metropolitan City held the “Camball Games” (hereinafter “instant Games”) in which a total of 48 teams participate in the total of 48 teams in the Gwangju Metropolitan City Jeoncheon-ro, 123, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City.

(2) The 8 course of the instant competition was comprised of ① the sports of “D” and “E” teams, ② the sports of “F” and “G” teams, ③ the sports of “H” and “I” teams, ④ the sports of “J” teams and “K” teams, and ④ The Plaintiff declared the failure of forfeiture to the said 3 team on the ground that the Plaintiff, before the commencement of the said 8 course games, participated in the said 3 team by a non-member of the pertinent division as a player.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant forfeiture Declaration”) C.

(1) On October 12, 2016, the conjunctive Defendant Branch held a set of punishment committee in the absence of the Plaintiff’s attendance, and the Plaintiff’s declaration of failure to confiscate the instant case constitutes an act of expulsion against the development and guidance ideology of the conjunctive Defendant Branch made a resolution to remove the Plaintiff from the ancillary Defendant Branch on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to confiscate the instant case constitutes an act of expulsion against the development and guidance ideology of the ancillary Defendant Branch. On October 13, 2016, the said resolution was notified to the primary Defendant Federation.

(2) After that, when the Plaintiff demanded the conjunctive Defendant Branch to give an opportunity to vindicate, the conjunctive Defendant Branch again held a standing committee on December 30, 2016 and passed a resolution to remove the Plaintiff from the ancillary Defendant Branch for the same reason as the Plaintiff attends.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant resolutions” in addition to the resolution of the set committee on October 12, 2016 and the resolution of the set committee on December 30, 2016. The main purpose of Article 2(1) of the Rules of the Branch of the Preliminary Defendant (No. 3-1) is the mutual relationship between the members.