1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the agenda item No. 2 in the annexed list shall be revoked, and the above revoked part shall be applicable.

1. Basic facts

A. Party status 1) The Defendant is a housing redevelopment project whose housing redevelopment project with the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E-mail 39,128 square meters as an improvement zone (hereinafter “instant project”).

The Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act”) shall apply.

(2) The Plaintiff is a person who was the head of the Defendant’s association.

B. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant’s special general meeting and the board of directors, etc. 1) on April 10, 2014, under Article 23(4) of the Urban Improvement Act, F, who is the Defendant’s member, was present at the Defendant’s special general meeting on behalf of at least 1/10 of the total number of 448 members and at least 70 members of the Defendant’s association, proposed the Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff, who is the head of the association at the time, as the first agenda; and accordingly, the Defendant convened a special general meeting on April 10, 2014, on behalf of at least 20 members of the Plaintiff’s association; accordingly, on April 14:0, 2014, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting at the 317 members from among the total number of 448 members of the Defendant’ association (69 members directly present at the meeting of 248 members) with the consent of a majority of the members present (as referred to subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff’s resolution at each chapter G.

3) In addition, the Defendant held a board of directors at the Defendant’s association office 16:20 on the same day, and suspended the performance of duties of the Plaintiff and G with the consent of six directors, and decided to appoint D, among full-time directors, as an acting director of the partnership, as an acting director of the partnership. On May 27, 2014, the Defendant convened a general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter referred to as “instant general meeting”) on June 19, 2014, where D, who was appointed as an acting director of the Defendant’s association, was appointed as an acting director of the Plaintiff and G with the consent of 42 representatives present among 51 representatives, with the consent of 51 representatives present.

2..