1. Of the Defendant’s resolution of the 137th board of directors on November 11, 2016, the Defendant’s disciplinary resolution against the Plaintiff and urgency as of November 22, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an incorporated association established pursuant to Article 67 of the Automobile Management Act with automobile management businessmen as its members, and the plaintiff is the defendant's member.

B. On November 11, 2016, the Defendant held the 137th board of directors on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Article 12(1)1 and 5 of the Articles of Incorporation, and resolved on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 12(1)1 and 5.

(C) The Defendant held an emergency board of directors to deliberate again on the first resolution on November 22, 2016, and resolved to suspend the voting rights and eligibility for election (hereinafter “the second resolution”) in the case of “the political party” (hereinafter “the second resolution”).

On November 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of candidate for the third president election. However, the Defendant’s chairman of the election management rejected the Plaintiff’s application on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s eligibility for election was suspended by a resolution of the first and second presidents.

E. The main contents of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation are as shown in Appendix 1, and the main contents of the Defendant’s election management regulations are as listed in Appendix 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 8 through 10, Eul evidence 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant, at the time of convening the board of directors for the first resolution, did not specify "the agenda for disciplinary action against the plaintiff" for the purpose of convening the board of directors.

In the end, the first resolution is made without notifying the plaintiff of specific grounds for disciplinary action, and it is invalid due to serious procedural defects.

B. The defendant's second resolution seems to be designed to supplement the procedural defects of the first resolution, which not only succeeded to the defects of the first resolution but also to the purpose and purpose of the meeting.