1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the judgment that the Defendant asserts by emphasizing this court, and thus, citing it by the text of Article 420 of the

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff joined as the Defendant’s member and drafted a written oath that “the Defendant consents to the rearrangement project promoted by the Defendant.”

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff filed a complaint, accusation, lawsuit, etc. against the Defendant and existing executives, filed a civil petition demanding the revocation of the Dmarket Improvement Project with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, thereby hindering the Defendant’s intended business, and intentionally violated the articles of association and written pledges, thereby losing the Defendant’s credit.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 10 of the instant articles of incorporation, the Defendant expelled the Plaintiff at the special general meeting of October 8, 2015 through legitimate procedures.

Therefore, the resolution of expulsion of this case is valid.

B. Determination 1) Since the expulsion disposition against a member of an organization such as the defendant deprived of his status as a member against the will of the member, it should be recognized only as a final means if it is inevitable for the organization's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da21750, May 10, 1994). According to the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap evidence 2 and Eul evidence 1 through 3, the purpose of the articles of incorporation of this case is to "the promotion of the common interests and welfare of the members, thereby promoting the prosperity and development of the members, and providing services to the citizens by promoting the prosperity and development of the members, while giving exemplary images," and the defendant's business as "the fact that the market improvement project was conducted as a special project for the modernization of the market, the plaintiff's consent to the rearrangement project promoted by the defendant as the defendant's member on October 17, 2013."