1. The part of the lawsuit in this case regarding the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the expulsion resolution shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of invalidity of the expulsion resolution against the Defendant is unlawful on the ground that it is a separate legal entity of “C” and “C” and the Defendant’s claim for confirmation of invalidity of the expulsion resolution against the Defendant is unlawful.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, only the relationship between the parties is not subject to confirmation, but also the relationship between one party and a third party, or between a third party, if there is an apprehension or risk in the relationship between the parties as to the relationship between the parties, and the legal relationship between the other party is an appropriate means to eliminate anxiety or risk in the relationship between the parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43580 Decided September 30, 2010). Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 2, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the non-corporate group was established for the purpose of settling self-reliance ability through physical, mental, and work rehabilitation of members of the State who have rendered distinguished services to the State, around 1974, around around the day of establishment of the non-corporate group. The defendant was a stock company established for the purpose of establishing self-support and promoting the welfare of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State on December 7, 199 (the trade name at the time of establishment was "D Co., Ltd.," on March 21, 2005, the Plaintiff’s resolution was adopted at the general meeting of shareholders with “B1” as “B,” and “B1,” respectively, on March 28, 2005.

In light of the above legal principles.