1. The plaintiff's part of the lawsuit of this case concerning the claim for confirmation is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On January 15, 2005, the Plaintiff was appointed as the president of a social welfare foundation B (hereinafter “B”) and completed his term of office three years, and was reappointed on January 15, 2008 and performed the president’s duties.

B. 1) B, such as a resolution of suspension from office against the Plaintiff, submitted a letter of the fact that the Plaintiff and B head of the Busan District Office were inappropriate in existence of their respective spouse, following confirmation, and on August 19, 2008, a provisional director meeting was held to make a resolution of suspension from office for one month (from August 25, 2008 to September 24, 2008) of suspension from office (hereinafter “the resolution of suspension from office in this case”) (hereinafter “the resolution of suspension from office”). B, as the proviso clause in the above resolution, was decided to dismiss the Plaintiff from office by holding a board of directors meeting on September 19, 208 and holding a resolution of suspension from office for the period of suspension from office for the period of suspension from office under the proviso clause in Article 23(2) of B, to make the basis of self-determination, ② to cut off all parts with C, ③ to immediately withdraw the Plaintiff’s husband from office, and to make improvement of the relationship between his husband and his external spouse.

(hereinafter “the instant resolution of dismissal” and “each of the instant resolutions” collectively referred to as “the instant resolution of dismissal.” The specific grounds for dismissal are as follows: ① The Plaintiff, on August 27, 2008, did not comply with the proviso of the instant order of suspension from office (i.e., the Plaintiff left the proviso of the instant order at the time of the instant suspension from office and returned to Busan on August 27, 2008, (ii) did not withdraw the complaint against the husband, and (iii) sent a note to the board of directors, and (ii) submitted a petition to dismiss the Plaintiff, among the total 280 employees, 226 members of B, who were in bad faith, as the chairperson of B.

C. As a result of the preceding lawsuit, the Plaintiff, as the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap103606, was against B, with respect to each of the instant resolutions, ① the board of directors is not authorized to resolve the suspension from office or dismissal of the Plaintiff, who is the president, and ② at the time of each of the instant resolutions.