1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The appeal cost is G. G. the Plaintiff’s representative.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s additional assertion constitutes grounds for disqualification of the president of the partnership, even if G, who was sentenced to the “fine of KRW 800,000,00” as above.

However, the instant association held an extraordinary general meeting as of September 21, 2017 and passed a resolution to amend the part concerning the requirements for deprivation of qualification of the president of the instant association to “a person in whose case five years have not passed since he was sentenced to a fine of at least one million won in violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents,” based on the amended articles of association, held an extraordinary general meeting as of December 7, 2017 and passed a resolution to again select G as the head of the association. Since the president of the association ratified all the procedural acts including the filing of the instant lawsuit, it can be deemed legitimate to institute the instant lawsuit.

B. According to each of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 11, 12, and 14 (including branch numbers, if any), the instant association held an extraordinary general meeting as of September 21, 2017, and passed a resolution to amend the articles of incorporation regarding the requirements for disqualification of the president of the association, as alleged by the plaintiff, and the fact that the instant association held an extraordinary general meeting as of December 7, 2017 and passed a resolution to again elect G to the head of the association.

On the other hand, the facts that G convened an extraordinary general meeting as of September 21, 2017 do not conflict between the parties (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief as of March 16, 2018), and whether G can be viewed as a legitimate convening authority of the extraordinary general meeting as of September 21, 2017.

The contents of the articles of incorporation of this case, which was enforced at the time, are as follows.

Article 14 (Duties, etc. of Executive Officers) (6)