1. On March 20, 2015, the board of directors confirms that a resolution by the Defendant to dismiss the Plaintiff from a cooperative member is null and void.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation established under the Automobile Management Act to promote the improvement and development of the motor vehicle transaction business and protect the parties to the transaction at the same time, and the Plaintiff served as the head of the Defendant’s association from March 2, 2011 to February 28, 2014.

B. On March 20, 2015, the Defendant made a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s member (hereinafter “instant resolution”) on the grounds that “the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 35,694,145 as a result of audit on the amount of the Defendant’s performance of duties as the head of the entire association, and acquired, or had a third party acquire, pecuniary benefits in breach of his/her duties as the head of the association.”

C. The defendant's articles of incorporation related to the resolution of this case is as shown in attached Form 1, and the defendant's ethical rules are as listed in attached Form 2.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each description of evidence Nos. 1, 5, 22, and 9 and 10 of the evidence Nos. 9 and 10 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The resolution of this case contains procedural defects as follows.

1) The Defendant issued a request to the Plaintiff for attendance at a meeting of the Ethics Committee to deliberate on the issue of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to attend a meeting of the Ethics Committee and thus, the Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to vindicate. 2) Even though the Defendant’s board of directors has the authority to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the decision of expulsion against the Plaintiff was actually made at the Defendant’s meeting of the Ethics Committee, and the Defendant’s board of directors adopted the instant resolution

As a result, the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to vindicate the disciplinary action against the plaintiff at the defendant's board of directors.

3. The defendant did not deliver to the plaintiff a statement of grounds for disciplinary action and the details of disciplinary action against the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the defendant.