1. On November 14, 2017, the Defendant confirmed that the disposition of expulsion of a member against the Plaintiff is null and void.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Defendant is an organization established with beauty artists as its members in order to promote the development of beauty art business, technical improvement, and mutual friendship among its members based on the Public Health Control Act. A branch office is established in Seoul for each Gu of the Federation, the Special Metropolitan City, and the Metropolitan City, each Do, each Do, and each Si/Gun/Gu. 2) The Plaintiff is a Defendant’s member, who is subject to the disposition of expulsion of its members from the Defendant on November 14, 2017, while the Plaintiff was employed as a branch office of the branch office under the Defendant’s control (hereinafter “C branch office”).

B. Disciplinary action against D: the Defendant from April 20, 2015 to April 20, 2015

4. By May 13, 2015, the director general of the C Branch Office requested the C Branch Office to take disciplinary action against D on the ground that D, who had been the director general of the C Branch Office, did not receive the teaching materials from the Defendant and did not receive the teaching materials properly, did not inflict damage on the Defendant.

Accordingly, the C Branch held a disciplinary committee on May 15, 2015 and decided to take disciplinary action against D.

2) On May 28, 2015, the Defendant’s Director General, who requested a request for a disciplinary decision against D, requested a review on D’s warning disposition. On July 23, 2015, the Defendant held a Central Review and Disciplinary Committee and decided to take disciplinary action against D’s “three months in suspension from office.” (iii) D applied for a request for remedy against D’s unfair suspension from office to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission as the other party, but on November 11, 2015, D was ruled dismissed on the ground that C’s agent was not the Defendant, and D’s request for review was rejected on the ground that D’s agent was not the Defendant. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the request for review on the same ground as the National Labor Relations Commission also on April 7, 2016.

4 With regard to the Defendant and C Branch, D seeks confirmation of the Defendant’s invalidity or absence of disciplinary action against D, and seek payment of benefits corresponding to the reduced portion during the period of suspension from office against C Branch.