1. The Defendant confirms that the resolution on the agenda stated in the separate sheet in the extraordinary general meeting on July 22, 2014 is null and void.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a non-corporate body comprised of “a person who is the head of a household residing in the metropolitan area (D, E, and F and who conforms to the provisions of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation and who has undergone a resolution of the board of directors” (Article 4 of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation). The Plaintiff, as the former president of the Defendant, was expelled from the Defendant’s extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant extraordinary meeting”).

B. As G Co., Ltd., a waste disposal business entity, promoted the installation of industrial waste reclamation sites in C areas, residents took place, and the representative of residents in C areas consented to the construction of the above reclamation site on the condition that the above company and the above company receive KRW 100 million each year, and around October 2003, H was organized by the Defendant to manage the above fund, and H was in charge of fund management and enforcement as the Defendant’s general

After that, on April 21, 2010, the general meeting of the defendant was held by the general meeting of the defendant, and the chairperson I, I, J, and I had been elected.

C. However, H, who had been in charge of fund management and enforcement as the Defendant’s general secretary, was indicted on July 28, 2010 on the ground of occupational embezzlement of which the sum of KRW 110,600,000 among the funds kept for business from around December 2004 to July 2008 was arbitrarily used for purchase of agricultural materials, living expenses, etc. (Seoul District Court Decision 2010No883 decided Oct. 21, 2010), and the above court was convicted of the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(hereinafter “relevant criminal judgment”) d.

After that, on February 9, 2012, the defendant's general meeting held that JJ, the auditor, and the general secretary K were elected, and the plaintiff argued that he should file a civil lawsuit against H after being elected as the auditor.

In this regard, the defendant J appears to have a passive attitude, and the plaintiff would return the costs of the lawsuit to the defendant when he/she bears the costs of the lawsuit, and the defendant's board of directors held on March 10, 2012 will file a lawsuit against H for damages.