1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 19, 2018 to September 13, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a member belonging to the defendant.

B. Around April 22, 2014, the president of the North Korean branch affiliated with the Defendant (hereinafter the president at that time) demanded disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the president of the North Korean branch affiliated with the Defendant (D) of the North Korean branch affiliated with the Defendant: (b) “In addition, without any ground, the Plaintiff slandered the North Korean branch and its affiliated with the Defendant, and spreads false information that the enforcement branch of the said North Korean branch and its affiliated organizations embezzled; (c) insult the president of the said branch and its affiliated organizations; and (d) interfere with the duties of the North Korean branch and its affiliated organizations; and (d) insult the president of the said branch and its affiliated organizations and interfere with the duties of the North Korean branch and its affiliated organizations; and (e) instigate the members of the said branch,

C. Accordingly, on September 17, 2014, the head of the above branch requested the Chairperson of the former Northern District District Disciplinary Committee to hold a local disciplinary committee to deliberate on the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff. On September 17, 2014, the head of the above branch notified the Local Disciplinary Committee of convening a disciplinary committee for deliberation on the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action.

On September 18, 2014, the chairperson of the Jeonbuk District District Disciplinary Committee sent a notice to the Plaintiff that “the request for disciplinary action was submitted” (the notice was returned due to the absence of closure on September 19, 2014 and September 22, 2014) and on September 25, 2014, the disciplinary committee held a disciplinary committee and deliberated on and decided the disciplinary action that suspended qualification for the Plaintiff for three years, and notified the Plaintiff of the result on the same day.

E. Accordingly, on September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review on the ground that “the Plaintiff cannot expect a fair disciplinary procedure because he/she was unable to be guaranteed an opportunity to make statements and vindicate in the disciplinary procedure.” However, on October 20, 2014, the said regional disciplinary committee chairperson made a disposition of suspending qualification for the Plaintiff again (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), and did not grant the Plaintiff an opportunity to make statements and vindicate.

F. The Plaintiff’s disciplinary action around October 22, 2014 is against the instant disciplinary action.