1. The Defendant’s decision that regulating the restoration project to the Plaintiff at the second extraordinary general meeting of 2014, August 5, 2014, and the Defendant’s decision on August 5, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a local agricultural cooperative with the aim of enhancing the agricultural productivity of its members, promoting the expansion of markets for agricultural products produced by its members and the activation of distribution, and enhancing the economic, social, and cultural status of its members by providing technology, funds, information, etc. required by its members. The plaintiff is the defendant's member.

B. On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff et al. sent to the Defendant’s auditor a petition requesting the audit on the grounds of the Defendant’s act of breach of trust, illegal conduct of business, unlawful act, etc. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff et al. sent to 70 representatives of the Defendant a petition requesting the audit through a general meeting resolution (hereinafter “each of the instant petition”). The Defendant’s auditors were conducting an audit on the content of each of the instant petition between July 16, 2014 and July 23, 2014; however, the audit results revealed that the content of each of the instant petition was not true or there was no supporting evidence, and the content of each of the instant petition is as shown in the attached Form.

C. On August 5, 2014, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting and held a vote against and against the Plaintiff, etc. to designate the Plaintiff, etc. as a person subject to the regulation of the restoration project, and with the consent of 62 of the 70 representatives present, passed the above proposal (hereinafter “instant resolution”). D.

On August 6, 2014, the Defendant held a board of directors on August 6, 2014, and held a pro-con vote against the Plaintiff, etc. to designate the Plaintiff, etc. as the subject of regulation of the restoration project from August 6, 2014 to the date of resolution by the board of directors. The Defendant passed the above proposal on the ground that the Plaintiff, etc. constitutes “a person who, with the consent of all the directors present, recognized that he/she would be able to do so to a customer or to a member of the board of directors,” and the resolution of the general meeting