1. In an election of the president of a partnership held by the Defendant on March 11, 2015, the decision that the president of the partnership made C as the elected person is null and void.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Cooperative is a regional livestock industry cooperative established in the area of Bupyeong-si, Sin Sin-si, Gwangju-si, and Ansan-si under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act (hereinafter “Agricultural Cooperatives Act”); and the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant Cooperative.

B. On March 11, 2015, the Defendant Cooperative held an election for the president of the partnership (hereinafter “instant election”), among 1,073 members listed on the electoral registry, Da 532 votes among the candidates for the president of the partnership and the Plaintiff obtained 444 votes, and the Defendant Cooperative decided as the elected person as the president of the partnership C, who received 88 votes higher than the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant decision of winning the election”). C.

The main contents of the relevant statutes and the articles of association of the defendant association are as shown in attached Form.

[Based on the recognition] entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (each number includes numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the inquiry result of this court's fact-finding to the Busan City/Gu Election Commission, the purport of the whole argument, and the purport of the whole argument

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The summary of the defendant's assertion 1) The plaintiff asserted that among 979 persons who participated in the election of this case, the non-member of the non-satisfy for more than two years at the time of voting reaches 651 persons, and that such non-satisfying member's non-qualified member's voting is null and void. However, even if the plaintiff's assertion was in fact, since the plaintiff was in office as an auditor of the defendant union, the plaintiff did not raise any problem about the above situation at the time of the election of this case, even though he was well aware of the above situation at the time of the election of this case, the plaintiff argued that the decision of this case was null and void. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it goes against the principle of good faith.