1. A non-Confidence resolution made by the defendant on April 29, 2015 against the plaintiff who is the vice-chairperson at the 65th regular general meeting.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a juristic person established pursuant to the Act on the Establishment of Organizations, such as Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, and the plaintiff was elected as a vice-chairperson at the 62th regular general meeting on May 30, 2013 as the defendant's members.

B. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of expulsion against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Central Disciplinary Committee held on January 27, 2015 neglected to perform its duties as a non-standing vice-chairperson or violated his duties, but issued a reduction of qualification on January 28, 2015.

(2) On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for a provisional disposition to suspend the validity of a disciplinary action under Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Kahap20030, and the same year.

2. 26. Seoul Southern District Court 2015Gahap101826 filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a disciplinary action.

(3) On March 7, 2015, the Defendant withdrawn the above disciplinary action, citing the Plaintiff’s petition at a petition review meeting of the Central Disciplinary Committee.

C. A non-Confidence resolution and expulsion resolution (1) of this case (hereinafter “the instant general meeting”) held on April 23, 2015 at the 185th board of directors (hereinafter “Board of Directors”) which held on April 23, 2015, the Defendant decided to present three agenda items, including a case on the approval of the budget settlement in 2014, a case on the approval of the major project promotion plan in 2015, and a case on the approval of the budget plan in 2015.

(2) The board of directors of the instant case presented the opinion that C director would present the disciplinary proposal against the Plaintiff as an additional agenda at the instant general meeting. However, Defendant D’s president requested withdrawal of the proposal, and C director did not withdraw the above opinion and present it as an agenda.

(3) On April 15, 2015, the Defendant rendered a muster notice to the members of the general assembly, specifying the date, time, place, and three agenda items in relation to the holding of the instant general meeting.

(4) However, the general meeting of this case is above.