1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for nullification of the notification of non-existence of the status of the head of the Center shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation established by C to support, coordinate, and promote volunteer service activities based on Article 19 of the Framework Act on Volunteer Service Activities and the C Ordinance on Volunteer Service Activities.

On July 23, 2011, the Plaintiff was appointed as the head of the Defendant on July 23, 201 to August 31, 2012. At the time, the Plaintiff was appointed as the head of the Defendant. The Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendant’s president following a resolution of the board of directors and the approval of the branch offices of the C.

B. On August 6, 2012, the board of directors of the Defendant on August 6, 2012 decided the Plaintiff’s reappointment (hereinafter referred to as “instant reappointment resolution”), which is a two-year term of office (hereinafter referred to as “instant reappointment resolution”), and the C branch approved it on August 21, 2012, and the Plaintiff served as the head of the Defendant’s headquarters after September 1, 2012, after the expiration of the term of office due to the initial appointment.

C. On October 21, 2013, among those, whether there is a defect in the plaintiff's reappointment procedure at the meeting of the board of directors on October 21, 2013, the board of directors set up a subcommittee and decided to review it.

After that, the board of directors of the defendant on November 11, 2013 reported the result of the activities to the effect that there is a serious defect in the plaintiff's reappointment procedure of the head of the center, so it is doubtful that the resolution of the board of directors and the approval of the Do governor are valid, and that there is no appointment act of the chief director, and that there is a high room to deem that there

The board of directors confirmed that the plaintiff's reappointment is not in the position of the head of the center, and decided on the agenda to require the chief director to take measures against the plaintiff's status, and decided the same contents in the defendant's extraordinary general meeting held on the same day.

E. On November 12, 2013, the Defendant held the board of directors and an extraordinary general meeting with the Plaintiff.