1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 18, 2005, the Defendant was established for the purpose of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, on the basis of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and passed a resolution on October 25, 201 on the dissolution of the association and the appointment of the Plaintiff as a liquidator at the board of representatives on October 25, 201, and completed the registration of dissolution on November 4, 201.

B. However, 105 members, such as F and D, proposed a special meeting with the Plaintiff’s dismissal and the election of new liquidators. Accordingly, on August 31, 2013, 201, 228 members, including 219 written resolution among 419 members, 229 members, and 9 members present at the special meeting (hereinafter “instant special meeting”) and 226 members present at the general meeting, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff, but did not reach a resolution for new liquidator appointment.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 11, 2013, and F and D applied for the appointment of liquidator on September 17, 2013 as Seoul Western District Court 2013 non-conforming39 on the ground that the liquidator is vacant according to the resolution of the instant special general meeting, and the said court appointed F as representative liquidator and D respectively on October 14, 2013.

On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a motion for a liquidator dismissal against the Defendant on the ground that “a resolution of dismissal against the Plaintiff at an extraordinary general meeting of this case due to lack of a quorum is null and void, and the Plaintiff still maintains the status of the liquidator, but the court’s appointment of the liquidator at the request of F and D constitutes a “material cause” under Article 84 of the Civil Act. However, on March 24, 2015, the said court cannot file an objection against the judgment of appointment or dismissal of the liquidator pursuant to Articles 36 and 119 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful as it is ultimately illegal.