1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Case history

A. 1) The recommendation of the person to be subsequent and the submission of documents are only 1) the Geumsan-gun B (hereinafter referred to as “B”).

As of April 2014, the Plaintiff consists of 305 residents (161 South Korea, 144), and the Plaintiff was appointed as the principal for a three-year term from April 18, 201 to three-year term of office. 2) On March 26, 2014, the Defendant requested that C of the B Development Committee recommend an objection to the expiration of the term of office of the Plaintiff, who is the principal, as of March 26, 2014, accompanied by the minutes of the community general meeting, the signature and seal register, the letter of recommendation of the L Development Committee, and the written consent of the principal.

3) On April 2014, C submitted to the Defendant the minutes of the Village General Meeting, the names and seals of the participants, the L Development Committee recommendation letter, and the written consent of the Plaintiff. B) On the contrary of the residents and the Defendant’s village residents, the number of village residents in B around April 2012, C found the Defendant as “a community general meeting is not held, and the Plaintiff is not a resident in the village, and the Plaintiff is not a resident in the village, and thus is not a resident in the village, and thus is not able to properly perform his/her duties as a head of the village.” The Plaintiff expressed his/her opposing opinion.

2) After reviewing the documents submitted by C, the Defendant determined that: (a) the date and time of the meeting minutes of the village general meeting was “ February 26, 2014”; (b) the number of participants was indicated as “C”; and (c) the number of participants did not meet the requirements of the village general meeting; and (b) there was no legitimate procedures for the village general meeting and the recommendation because the signature and seal of the members participating in the village general meeting appears to have the same penology; and (d) the signature and seal of the recommendation letter of the Development Committee overlap with the signature and seal, etc., the recommendation letter of the Development Committee was almost overlapped. Since then, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the contents of the attorney’s advice on June 17, 2014; and (c) requested the Plaintiff to re-meeting the village general meeting on July 8, 2014.