1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Intervenor”) was established to implement a housing redevelopment project with one unit of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a rearrangement zone, and the number of members of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association is 805. The Plaintiff, as a member of the Intervenor’s Union, worked as a proxy until the authorization for change of the association is granted on November 24, 2014.

B. Around August 31, 2014, a member of the Intervenor, including D, the president of the Intervenor Union, was detained due to criminal facts, such as acceptance of bribe and occupational breach of trust, etc. Around August 31, 2014. Around September 25, 2014, the Intervenor’s 226 members, including I, demanded D to convene an extraordinary general meeting, the purpose of which is to amend the articles of incorporation and appoint an executive officer.

C. On November 1, 2014, the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association held an extraordinary general meeting of the union members (hereinafter “instant extraordinary meeting”) and passed a resolution to modify the Articles of Association with respect to “restriction on the exercise of power of attorney, strengthening the responsibility of executives, improving the method of submitting a written resolution, and the method of resolution at a general meeting,” with the consent of a majority of 480 union members present at 805 union members (hereinafter “instant amendment to the Articles of Association”). The new president of the Mutual Aid Association passed a resolution to elect I, directors J, K, K, L, M, N, andO, respectively.

On November 6, 2014, the Intervenor Mutual Aid Association filed an application for authorization for the change of its establishment with the Defendant on the basis of the details of the resolution of the special general meeting of this case, and obtained authorization for the change on November 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The procedural defect of the instant special meeting is a grave defect in the process of the instant special meeting, and the resolution is null and void. Accordingly, the instant disposition is also unlawful. A) At the time of convening the instant special meeting, the head of the association D at the time of convening the special meeting.