1. The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation against Defendant Dental Association of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and Defendant’s incorporated association.

1. Basic facts

A. The Korea Dental Technicians Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is established with the aim of facilitating academic research and technological development in the field of dental technicians as members of the dental technicians within the Republic of Korea, and is established for the purpose of promoting academic research and technological development in each Metropolitan City and Do.

The defendant Dental Association of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Jeju Branch") is a branch under the defendant Association composed of dental technicians residing in Jeju-do.

The plaintiff was a dental technician residing in Jeju-do and was admitted as a member of the defendants in around 1981.

B. In around 2005, the Defendant Jeju District Office decided not to cooperate with the above university students, such as attending the university at the monthly conference on April 2005, or receiving students from the above university as trainees.

C. Nevertheless, around 2007, the Plaintiff was recruited as a visiting professor at the dental branch of the B college. The Defendant Jeju Branch held a monthly meeting on February 3, 2007 and passed a resolution on expulsion of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant expulsion resolution”) and notified the Defendant Association on June 30, 2007.

On the other hand, the defendant Association responded that there is a defect in the resolution of the expulsion of this case on the grounds that the articles of incorporation do not stipulate the "disbarment" as the type of disciplinary action and the due process such as providing an opportunity to vindicate is not observed.

Defendant Jeju Branch withdrawn the resolution of expulsion against the Plaintiff, and sent a public notice on November 24, 2012, and on June 5, 2013, to the Defendant Association that appropriately deal with the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff in accordance with the articles of incorporation, but the Defendant Association did not take any measure. On November 18, 2013, the Defendant Association held a temporary directors meeting and decided to present the disposition of suspension of rights, rather than an “distincing” as a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, and obtained the approval of the Defendant Association on November 21, 2013, and notified the Defendant of this fact thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute.