1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association whose project area covers Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A Apartment (the site area of 30,441 square meters), and the Defendant served as the head of the instant association.

B. On May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff’s member C held an extraordinary general meeting where the dismissal of the Defendant who is the president of the partnership at the time was an extraordinary meeting.

At the above extraordinary general meeting, a resolution to dismiss the defendant was passed with the consent of 105 of the total number of 180 members of the plaintiff association.

C. On June 5, 2014, the board of representatives of the Plaintiff Union adopted a resolution suspending the duties of the Defendant, etc.

Plaintiff

D, the oldest of the directors of a union, was convened and held on July 31, 2014 as the acting director of a union under Articles 18(5) and 16(6)3 of the union’s articles of association, and was adopted a resolution to elect E from the extraordinary meeting to the succeeding director of a union.

In Seoul Central District Court 2014Kahap1088, the Defendant filed against the Plaintiff, asserting the illegality of the special meeting as of May 29, 2014, which was decided to dismiss the Defendant, and filed a provisional disposition prohibiting the holding of the special meeting with respect to provisional disposition prohibiting the holding of the special meeting with respect to the provisional disposition prohibiting the holding of the special meeting with respect to the Seoul Central District Court 2014Kahap1088, the Defendant rejected the Defendant as of July 30, 2014, which was decided to dismiss the Defendant.

E. In the case of the Seoul Central District Court 2014Kahap80872 and the disposition of suspension of the performance of duties and the disposition of leave order, which was brought against the Defendant by the succeeding president E, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s appointment of the attorney-at-law as the attorney-law and the dismissal resolution at the extraordinary general meeting of May 29, 2014, and the above resolution of suspension of duties at the board of representatives on June 5, 2014 was unlawful and procedurally invalid. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the grounds for dismissal of the Defendant do not exist in light of the Plaintiff’s association’s establishment, business promotion, and dispute occurrence and dispute progress.