1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Union was established to carry out the business of newly building and selling apartment units on the land of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, a regional housing association method, but did not obtain authorization for establishment. Defendant B was a non-corporate entity who carried out the audit and inspection positions of the Defendant Union until December 31, 2016. The Plaintiff was a representative of the Defendant Union F on August 6, 2016, who was selected as the head of the Defendant Association with members G at the 14th special general meeting of the Defendant Union’s 14th members.

B. On November 12, 2016, the Defendant Cooperative held the instant extraordinary general meeting, and passed a resolution of this case with respect to the approval of cash payers, extension of the period of settlement committee for the liquidation of the partnership, financial reporting of the operation of the partnership, audit reporting, and election of the head of the D partnership.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant resolution adopted by the Defendant Union at the instant special meeting is invalid since: (a) the Defendant Union did not go through legitimate procedures, such as unfairly evading the Plaintiff’s right to enforce the intent, which is the president of the association; (b) failed to meet the quorum prescribed by the rules of the Defendant Union; and (c) the resolution to select D as the president of the association was adopted in a way of public disclosure in violation of Article 11 of the rules of the Defendant Union, which provides that “the

3. Determination on the legality of the instant lawsuit

A. Determination as to the Defendants’ defense prior to the merits - The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Defendant Union is not the Defendant Union member, and is currently not in the position of the president of the partnership, and thus is not in the position to seek confirmation of invalidity of the Defendant Union’s resolution

In particular, Defendant D resigned from the office of partnership head on January 10, 2017, and Defendant D elected H as a new president of the partnership. As such, the part of the instant resolution seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution that Defendant D appointed as the president of the partnership is sought.