1. The Defendant’s membership on January 7, 2016 and on March 24, 2016, each of the board of directors as of March 2016, against the Plaintiff for 18 months.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an organization organized within the branch of the Gyeonggi-do branch of the Korea Institute of Private Teaching Institutes, an incorporated association, the affiliate of the Korea Institute of Korean Federation of Private Teaching Institutes, the purpose of which is to promote the sound development of a private teaching institute, protect its rights and interests, and contribute to the promotion of social education and the promotion of culture through mutual cooperation among its members, and the plaintiff is the chairperson of the defendant's D Committee as a member of the defendant's C district.

B. 1) On December 3, 2015, the Defendant organized an Ethics Committee to deliberate on the Plaintiff’s misconduct, including the Plaintiff’s unreasonable filing of a petition, which was reported at several regional meetings to which the Defendant belongs. On January 7, 2016, following deliberation by the Ethics Committee, the Defendant passed a resolution to suspend the Plaintiff’s membership for 18 months for the following reasons. First, the Plaintiff’s severe pressure, such as: (a) the Plaintiff was the Chairperson of the F Office of Education, and (b) whether he was not receiving an inappropriate entertainment or entertainment from E from E to the person in charge of F Office of Education, which is the Defendant’s competent authority; (c) caused the Defendant to have the relation with the Defendant and the competent authority; and (d) caused the Defendant’s incompetuating the Defendant’s domestic and overseas correspondence (hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”).

2) The Plaintiff interfered with the Defendant’s business, such as the Plaintiff’s claim is received by a majority of its members, by spreading false facts to its members, even if it was determined by the Gyeonggi-do branch at the time of the previous year’s training, and the lifelong development fund (10,00 won) that was implemented by the Gyeonggi-do branch at the time of the Plaintiff’s lifelong development fund (hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”).

Thirdly, the Plaintiff is not the actual operator of the G Institute, but the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for fact-finding with the Office of Education, and the Plaintiff is the Defendant Chairperson.