1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 5, 2015, in order to elect the 23th representatives of the Defendant’s 23th representatives, the Defendant’s president C announced the following election.

The name of a constituency: The number of representatives to be elected for the DE constituency: The time and place of two election days: March 15, 2015; the period of registration of candidates for the DD community hall: the period from March 5, 2015 to June 5 (2 days) shall not be the representative of the defendant, who operates or is engaged in any business in substantial competition with the defendant's business on or before the date of candidate registration.

(Provided, That if any competition relationship is terminated by the date preceding the registration of the candidate, the candidate may be registered. (b)

The Plaintiff’s registration of a candidate and the Plaintiff’s election were registered as a representative on March 5, 2015, and the Plaintiff was elected as a representative at an election conducted on March 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant election”).

C. On April 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) held the fourth regular board of directors on April 29, 2015 and decided to recognize that the Plaintiff is operating a business in substantial competition with the Defendant’s business; (b) notified the Plaintiff on May 26, 2015 that “the restriction on the qualification of representative candidate” constitutes the restriction on the qualification of candidate.

The Defendant’s “BF retail shop” operated petroleum retail business from May 25, 2004 under the name of “BFFF retail shop”, “BF retail shop”, which sells light oil, gasoline, and indoor oil to a luxing vehicle, or by being sold by customers on a container brought by customers.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 5, witness G, and H's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's plaintiff's "ISP" was notified of "restrictions on eligibility for admission" on the grounds that the plaintiff's "ISP" is competition with BFF, but that notification is invalid on the following grounds. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's representative

(1)