1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an industrial trade union composed of members of nationwide community credit cooperatives as its constituent members.

On the other hand, on July 16, 2008, the labor union comprised of nine workers of the Jdong Fund, including the Defendant (Appointed Party, hereinafter “Defendant”), designated parties, and I, was a J-Subdivision (hereinafter “J-Subdivision”) affiliated with the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff.

B. Article 13(5) of the Plaintiff’s “Rules” imposes an obligation on members to pay various kinds of surcharges determined by the association dues and regulations, and the main text of Article 42(1) of the said Rules provides that 1.2% of the total amount of annual salary (excluding mutual aid allowances, mutual aid allowances, and retirement allowances) before the year-end settlement as of the end of the business year immediately preceding each month shall be the union’s expense. In addition, Article 3(1) of the Plaintiff’s “Rules on the Remedy of Victims” provides that 2% of the basic salary per member shall be raised from the Victim Remedy Fund every month. Article 63(2) of the collective agreement of 2010, which was maintained by the collective agreement of 2012, provides that the National Saemaul Bank shall pay 50,000 won per member per month to the Plaintiff.

C. On the other hand, on August 7, 2012, the Plaintiff held a disciplinary committee and rendered a decision on disciplinary action against Defendant, Appointed C, D, and E as to the disciplinary action of each “inorganic Rights”, F, G, and H based on the three-month period.

However, Article 73(1)3 of the above Code provides that if a member who was subject to the measure of the weapons regime fails to receive the order of rescission of the regime after six months have passed from the date of receipt of the notification of the regime, he/she shall be expelled as a matter of course. Around that time, the defendant, Appointors C, D, and E notified of the disciplinary measure of the weapons regime was disbarredd because he/she was unable to receive the order of cancellation of the regime until February 7, 2013, which was six months after the notification of the regime.

Appointed B, F, G, and H shall be the Plaintiff on August 14, 2013.