1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for this Court concerning this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the plaintiff's assertion that has been repeated in the court of first instance.

It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The main issue of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the following procedural defects exist, and that defect is significant and obvious against the principles of partnership democracy, and thus the Defendant’s decision to elect C as the head of the branch office in the temporary conference on December 14, 2013 is null and void.

In order to change the method of election for the head of the defendant's branch from the direct election system by the general meeting to the presidential election system by the representatives' meeting, the resolution of the general meeting or the representatives' meeting shall be required.

Nevertheless, the Defendant changed the method of election of the head of the branch to the liver by a resolution of the Standing Committee, which is a mere executive organ, and C was elected as the head of the Defendant’s branch by the indirect election at the Extraordinary Congress on December 14, 2003.

Therefore, there is a serious procedural defect in the election of this case.

B. In addition, the defendant announced the temporary representative meeting on December 14, 2003, which was the agenda item for the election of officers, limited the period of registration of candidate for the branch director candidate to three days, and limited the period of registration of candidate for the branch director candidate to 41 or more members in order to run for candidate.

Accordingly, the defendant has practically deprived the members of their opportunity to run.

As such, there is a serious procedural defect in the election of this case.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion that the instant election was held based on the illegal resolution of the Defendant Standing Committee, the instant election is invalid. (1) Whether the Defendant Standing Committee’s change the method of election for the head of the branch office to the simple election system is unlawful is an autonomous organization organized by the employees to protect their interests, and its inside.