1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s resolution on the extraordinary general meeting of November 25, 2017 is valid.

Facts of recognition

On December 18, 2014, the Defendant related to the parties is a cooperative established under the Framework Act on Cooperatives for the purpose of carrying out the chartered bus transportation business, etc., and the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s director and the chief director on December 18, 2014, but was dismissed by a resolution of an extraordinary general meeting on November 25, 2017 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”).

Ten defendant union members, including the participants who participated in the convening procedure of the general assembly of this case, appear to be erroneous in 2018, which is written in the evidence 1 and 2 No. 2017 Byung 1, 2017.

8. 21. The Defendant, the president of the Defendant, filed a claim for convening an extraordinary general meeting under Article 32(1)2 of the Articles of Incorporation on the ground that “Until the result of the Defendant’s case of the non-use of partnership funds, it is necessary to suspend business as the president of the Plaintiff, or dismiss the president of the Plaintiff.”

On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a request for convening an extraordinary general meeting under Article 32(3) of the Articles of Incorporation on the ground that “the Plaintiff, a chief director, did not convene an extraordinary general meeting within two weeks from the time of request for convocation” with the Defendant’s auditor H on September 7, 2017.

However, the defendant's auditor did not take the procedure of convening an extraordinary general meeting within seven days.

On October 30, 2017, nine members, including an independent party Intervenor C, etc., notified the Defendant’s principal office and the board of directors to the effect that “The Plaintiff, the president, and the Defendant’s auditor H, received a request for convening an extraordinary general meeting under Article 32(2) and (3) of the Articles of incorporation, but did not follow the procedures for convening an extraordinary general meeting. As such, the independent party Intervenor C, the representative of the association members who filed the request for convening an extraordinary general meeting, is expected to hold an extraordinary general meeting

Since then, a participant of an independent party C requested the plaintiff and the defendant to inform him of the number and list of the union members in order to determine the subject of notification for convening an extraordinary general meeting, which is the defendant.