1. The Defendant’s expulsion disposition against the selected parties E, F, and G on October 16, 2014, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on June 27, 2015.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant asserts that U does not have any evidence to prove whether the appointed party U was appointed as the appointed party (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and that U is the Plaintiff’s qualification.

In order to perform a lawsuit as the appointed party, it shall be attested in writing as to the qualification of the appointed party (see Articles 71 and 58 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact that the Plaintiffs submitted a letter of appointment of the party with U’s seal affixed when submitting the instant complaint, and that the Defendant failed to submit particular documents as to U while the lawsuit is pending.

However, the following circumstances can be revealed by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 14 and 19: (i) the defendant asserted that there was a defect in the selection process in the case of the designated persons who failed to submit a certificate of personal seal impression among the designated persons after the plaintiffs submitted the complaint of this case; and (ii) the plaintiffs filed an application with this court No. 2015Kahap882 prior to the filing of the suit of this case for provisional disposition on January 20, 2016 for provisional disposition ordering the suspension of the validity of the resolution of expulsion and suspension of qualification suspension; (iii) the designated parties included U U U U U U.S. as of June 27, 2015; and (iv) the designated parties U.S. continued to respond to the Defendant’s disciplinary action including the provisional disposition in response to the above case and the U.S. certificate of personal seal impression was submitted at around 2016.