1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. C at an extraordinary general meeting of September 19, 2014 by the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a cooperative established pursuant to the Urban Development Act for the purpose of an urban development project with respect to the area of 21,554 square meters in Daegu Seo-gu L, and the Plaintiff is a member of the instant association.

B. The Defendant held a general meeting to elect officers on September 19, 2014. A resolution was made at the above general meeting to elect the president, directors, etc. (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

The articles of incorporation of the instant association relating to the instant case are as follows.

(5) When the votes obtained from an election as provided for in the provisions of paragraph (1) are the same, the oldest person shall be the executive officer.

Article 19 (General Meeting) (1) A union shall hold a general meeting.

(2) A general meeting shall be comprised of members.

(3) In making a resolution at a general meeting and public inspection, any member may delegate his/her power of representation to any adult family member of his/her company or any person designated by him/her.

Article 23 (Quorum of Meeting) (1) Meetings of a general meeting shall require attendance of at least a majority of the members (including representatives), and a resolution shall be made with the consent of at least a majority of the members of the partnership (including representatives), and when the numbers of votes of approval and disapproval are determined by the Speaker

Provided, That the provisions of Article 12 shall apply to a resolution on the appointment of executive officers.

C. The Plaintiff delegated the exercise of voting rights to M in relation to the instant resolution, and the proxy (hereinafter “the proxy of this case”) affixed the Plaintiff’s seal impression and attached the Plaintiff’s seal impression. However, the Plaintiff’s personal information in the column for the matters on the mandatory of the proxy of this case was limited on the ground that the Plaintiff’s personal information was stated in the column for the matters on the mandator, and M’s personal information was stated in the column for matters on the mandator, and thus, the Plaintiff did not vote at the time of the instant resolution.

At the time of the resolution of this case, 34 of the 38 members of the defendant association were present in the capacity of the principal or an agent, and 33 of the remaining members except M were voting, and C 17 of the 33 members were voting as the president of the association.