1. The plaintiff confirms that he is the defendant's member.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant: (a) on May 26, 2006, in order to implement a reconstruction project within 54,594m2 (hereinafter “instant rearrangement zone”) of Daegu Suwon-gu, and 305m2 (hereinafter “Seoul-gu, 2006, the Seoul-gu, Seoul-gu, and 305m2 (hereinafter “instant rearrangement

8. The Act prior to the wholly amended by Act No. 14567 (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

(2) On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project partnership established pursuant to the Act. The Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant, who owns and resides in the Daegu Suwon-gu D site and its ground housing located in the instant rearrangement zone. Around May 31, 2017, the Defendant was scheduled to hold a general meeting of shareholders with a view to expulsion of the Plaintiff for the following reasons, and the Plaintiff was notified that the Plaintiff would be given an opportunity to vindicate the Plaintiff on the date of the general meeting. The reason for expulsion prevents the Plaintiff from implementing the reconstruction project since 2007, and prevents the Plaintiff from individually visiting and participating in the reconstruction project, and prevented the Plaintiff from individually visiting and participating in the reconstruction project, thereby failing to perform his/her duties. The Plaintiff breached his/her obligations as a member, such as inducing the Plaintiff to not participate in the reconstruction project, demanding the termination of the designation of the rearrangement zone, demanding the consent form for cancellation of the designation of the rearrangement zone, distributing false printed materials, demanding the Plaintiff to participate in the redevelopment project.

C. On June 18, 2017, the Defendant held an ordinary general meeting and deliberated on the agenda for the resolution of expulsion against the Plaintiff.

In the above resolution for expulsion, 76 members who cast a vote directly among 243 members, and 87 members who submitted a written resolution were present.

Of the above number of members present, 136 members agreed to the expulsion of the plaintiff (as 11 opposing members, 16 invalid members, and 16 members) were resolved on the proposal of the plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant expulsion resolution”) D. D.