1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit (including the portion arising from the supplementary participation) shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project association established on April 25, 2008 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). The Plaintiff is elected as the head of the Defendant’s association on March 13, 2015, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) is the Defendant’s member.

(b) 46 persons, including assistant intervenors, are representatives of D on February 2018, Article 43(4) and Article 43(2) of the Urban Improvement Act (Disqualifications for and dismissal of partnership executives) (4) of the partnership executives may, notwithstanding Article 44(2), be dismissed at a general meeting convened at the request of at least 1/10 of the partnership members at the attendance of a majority of the partnership members and with the consent of a majority of the partnership

In such cases, the authority of the president of the association shall be exercised when a person elected as the representative of the requester calls and proceed with the general meeting of dismissal.

Pursuant to the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s dismissal, etc. was required to convene an extraordinary general meeting, and D, on February 13, 2018, issued a muster notice to the effect that the instant extraordinary general meeting will be held on March 4, 2018 with its agenda.

C. On March 4, 2018, at the general meeting of this case held on March 4, 2018, 189 of the total number of Defendant Union members (i.e., 177 members directly present at the 12 members directly present) were present and the Plaintiff’s dismissal proposal was resolved with the consent of 183 members.

On the other hand, on June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional disposition of suspending the performance of duties (Seoul Eastern District Court 2018Kahap10145) by stating that the Intervenor against the Defendant shall not perform his/her duties as the president of the partnership until the final and conclusive judgment of the lawsuit demanding confirmation of the existence of abandonment (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2018Kahap10145). Attorneys E was appointed as the representative of the president of the partnership on June 28

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the resolution of dismissal of the instant case should be invalidated due to procedural defects as follows. Thus, the Plaintiff’s examination is conducted in turn.

(a)..