1. On February 23, 2016, the Defendant’s election commission’s decision to invalidate the election of the president against the Plaintiff is null and void.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 11 (including serial numbers), respectively:

The defendant is a juristic person established for the purpose of running credit business, etc. under the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, and the plaintiff is a person elected as the president from the defendant's election at the general meeting of representatives of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "election of this case") on February 2, 2016 as follows. The defendant's assistant is a person who was going out of the election of this case for consecutive terms while serving as the chief director of the defendant, but has come out of the election

B. The Defendant’s term of office of the chairperson, vice-chairperson, etc. expired on February 27, 2016, and the Defendant’s election commission constituted January 13, 2016 to manage election affairs regarding the former president, vice-chairperson, etc., and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor and the Plaintiff registered the Defendant’s candidate No. 1 as the candidate for the president and the candidate No. 2 as the candidate for the vice-chairperson. D and the candidate No. 2 as the candidate for the president were registered.

C. On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a text message to 50 out of 120 representatives with voting rights to the instant election, stating, “I will provide the author with a comprehensive inspection right that was promised four years prior to the fourth-year election and twice special inspection expenses and raise the general meeting allowance of KRW 100,000,000” (hereinafter “instant 1 message”). On January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a text message to 50 of the above representatives, stating, “This election shall be held 2:0:00,000,000 2:00,0000,000,000 won, and 2:00,000,0000 won,” (hereinafter “instant 2 message”).

The election commission of the defendant sent the first message of this case to the plaintiff is identical to Article 22 (2) 1 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act.