beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established under the Credit Unions Act, and the executives of the Plaintiff’s union are one chief director, seven directors, and three auditors. Defendant B was elected as the Plaintiff’s chief director through an election on February 27, 2014.
3) The remaining Defendants are the Plaintiff’s directors. B. G and H’s order leave and standby order 1) Defendant B issued a leave order to G and H, who is the Plaintiff’s employee, from February 28, 2014 to March 7, 2014, and notified G and H of standby order for three months from March 10, 2014 on the ground that “the fact-finding on the illegal election related to the election of the chief director and the possibility of destroying evidence related to the illegal election” was the same.
2) G and H filed a civil petition with the National Credit Union Federation of Korea that an order leave and a standby order are unfair, and Defendant B revoked the standby order of G and H on May 9, 2014. C. A new employee recruitment and the board of directors resolution 1) on March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff publicly announced the employment of two employees on a new or career basis.
2) On March 25, 2014, Defendant B presented “approval for Appointment of Employees” as the second regular period of time in 2014, as the proposal No. 4, and the proposal No. 4 was passed with five affirmative votes (Defendants), three opposing parties (director I, J, and K). In the second regular period of time in 2014, the director I, G, and H received a standby order, but opposed to the dismissal and employment of the staff by considering the authenticity of the monthly salary, and Defendant B responded to the dismissal and employment of the staff. Since the normal work was difficult, Defendant B should first be employed as a staff, Defendant B voteded to vote with his name. 3) At the second regular period of time in 2014, it was proposed that the suspension of duties for G and H was approved.
4) A new employee L has served from April 2014 to June, 2014, and M has served for the period from April 2014 to April 5) Defendant B has served for the period from July 30, 2014.