beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs are members of the defendant.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 1990, Plaintiff A joined as a member of the Defendant and served as the president of the Defendant D (199 to 2000). Plaintiff B joined as a member of the Defendant on March 1997 and served as the president of the Defendant E (2004 to 2005).
B. On January 5, 2016, the Defendant board of directors held on January 17:0, 2016, with the consent of 2/3 of the board of directors, a conditional expulsion resolution was made on the ground that the Plaintiffs committed an act contrary to the Defendant’s charter and purpose, such as disregarding the matters resolved by the board of directors, bringing about the dualization of members, and impairing friendship and friendship, etc.
(hereinafter “instant expulsion resolution”) C.
The contents of the Defendant Charter with respect to the resolution of expulsion of this case are as follows.
Article II The objectives of these clubs are to:
1. To promote the good faith doctrine, theory, and practice as a good citizen with the Government;
2. It shall have an active interest in improving local communities, citizens' living, social welfare, and public morals;
3. It is hard to strengthen the unity of members as friendship, friendship, and mutual understanding.
4.An adequate and free discussion shall be made on matters relating to all public interest by beginning the power wave and the wave.
5. The purpose of improving efficiency and moral level with respect to business and professional occupation, but not to promote the economic interests of members;
§ 24. Members who commit acts contrary to the charter and objectives of this club shall be expelled by a resolution of the board of directors at least 2/3.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 11 evidence (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiffs did not have any grounds for expulsion stipulated in the defendant charter, etc., and the defendant did not provide the plaintiffs with an opportunity to vindicate in advance.