1. The Defendant’s KRW 89,561,289 as well as 5% per annum from September 5, 2011 to May 14, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the party (1) The Plaintiff’s branch is an employee organization organized as a branch of the AUnion (hereinafter “ACo-operation Union”) that is an industrial trade union, with the employees of B’s cooperatives as its members.

(2) Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission shall:

As seen in the foregoing paragraph, the labor union for each unit company was reported after the resolution of the general assembly on August 26, 201 with workers of the above B Cooperatives as members of the workers.

B. The instant resolution of the general assembly and the Defendant’s establishment report (1) E, the head of the Plaintiff’s branch, intended to change its structural structure from among the Plaintiff’s members to a single company-level trade union, which led to the occurrence of a situation by making a structural change from the Plaintiff’s branch to a single company-level trade union. However, as it is anticipated that it would not obtain a resolution on the approval of the AFTA’s trade union, it was expected that it would independently implement the general assembly resolution on structural change.

(2) On August 11, 2011, E made a draft public notice on August 23, 201 on the agenda of a structural change, etc., as a member of the C&C Preparatory Chairperson, as an agenda. On August 19, 2011, E made a draft public notice on the general meeting on August 26, 201, under the qualification of “A&A branch director” as an agenda item, on the withdrawal from and structural change, and on August 26, 2011, E made a draft public notice on the general meeting as an agenda item.

(3) On August 18, 201, 201, the Plaintiff’s trade union sent to E an official document demanding suspension of a general meeting’s implementation on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s branch was an independent branch with the right to decide on the labor conditions, and that it did not have the right to decide on the structural change. On the other hand, on August 22, 2011, the Plaintiff notified E of the fact that the accounting fraud of E was revealed as a result of the audit and inspection.

(E) A cooperation union withdrawal and structural formation at the Assembly of August 26, 201, which is called as above, is charged with these facts and currently under criminal trials by the North Northern District Court 2012dan401. (4)