1. The request is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 4, 2014, Defendant Association President B requested the Plaintiff to prepare a general meeting and convene a general meeting on behalf of the Plaintiff for the election of the president of the association. On November 20, 2014, the board of representatives selects the Plaintiff as a general meeting agency and confirmed the contract. The Plaintiff accepted the contract and provided services for the collection of the general meeting.

B. After completing all preparations for the collection of the general meeting, the Plaintiff provided the necessary services such as the board of directors, the board of representatives, the preparation of eight million won for the preference, three million won for the attendance at the meeting, three million won for the personnel expenses of representatives, the printing expenses of 824,00 won for various postal services, such as attorney-at-law's self-written notice, etc., 6,874,680 won for various postal services, personnel expenses of promotion personnel, 7,350,000 won for promotion personnel, 120,000 won for the stenographic recording, one million won for video photographing, 40,000 won for the lease of the general meeting place, 130,600 won for the fixtures, etc., but the Defendant

C. Since the Defendant’s payment of the Plaintiff’s expenses was exempted from the necessary expenditure, unjust enrichment is established.

In electively, the defendant has a legitimate expectation that the service contract will be concluded clearly by going through a resolution of the board of representatives, etc., and refused to conclude the contract despite the plaintiff's performance of the contract, so a tort is established, and the plaintiff should compensate for the expenses incurred by the plaintiff.

2. In order to select the plaintiff as a general meeting agency, the board of representatives resolved as a general meeting agenda and then passed a resolution at the general meeting, but the case of selecting the plaintiff as a general meeting agency was rejected by the board of representatives.

(2) Accordingly, the board of representatives’ assertion of unjust enrichment and tort, which are premised on the resolution of the agenda in which the plaintiff was selected as a general meeting agency, is without merit.

On November 20, 2014, the plaintiff's expenses are required to proceed with the representatives' meeting on November 20, 2014 to resolve the agenda selected by the plaintiff as a general meeting agency.