1. On February 5, 2015, the Defendant orders the dissolution of the Plaintiff-do Gangwon-do Gangwon-do Office of the Jeju-si.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation established under the Passenger Transport Service Act for the purpose of promoting the sound development of the entire private taxi transport business of Gangwon-do and the common interests of private taxi transport business entities, and the original-si branch of Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “Plaintiff branch”) is an association by Si/Gun established by the Defendant to entrust part of its duties to each Si/Gun in Gangwon-do, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are the operating members of the Plaintiff branch as private taxi transport business entities.

B. On October 29, 2014, Nonparty J, a member of the Plaintiff’s branch, filed an application for dissolution of the Plaintiff’s branch with the Defendant on the ground that it did not properly vote for the pros and cons of the members of the Plaintiff’s branch in relation to the construction project of the Plaintiff’s branch, and caused damage to the Plaintiff’s branch due to the autonomous progress of the Plaintiff’s branch and the executive branch, and illegally elected an unqualified person as the operating committee member.

C. Accordingly, at an ordinary meeting held on February 5, 2015, the Defendant made a resolution to order the dissolution of the Plaintiff’s branch (hereinafter “instant resolution”) with the consent of 19 representatives, 36 incumbent representatives among 36 representatives and 19 representatives present, based on Article 35(1) of the Defendant’s Local Operation Rules.

On February 9, 2015, the Defendant ordered the head of the Plaintiff’s branch to order the dissolution of the Plaintiff’s branch by the instant resolution (hereinafter “instant order”); and on February 10, 2015, the Defendant notified the head of the Si/Gun branch of the fact that “the primary branch was dissolved by the instant resolution, the qualification of the representative of the Plaintiff’s branch was lost pursuant to Article 38(3) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation.”

E. Meanwhile, around April 30, 2015, the non-party K, who promoted the re-establishment of the branch office at the home of the Defendant, approved the Defendant to re-establishment of the branch office and to act on behalf of the Defendant.