1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,97,480 and its related amount are 5% per annum from April 28, 2018 to January 17, 2019.

1. On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff, a summary of the instant case, was elected as the president at the general meeting of the Defendant Representative, but the Defendant Election Commission decided to invalidate the Plaintiff’s election on February 23, 2016 due to the filing of an objection by the Defendant Intervenor.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional injunction against holding an election of executive officers with this Court 2016Kahap27, and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidation of the election of the Defendant Election Commission by this Court 2016Kahap101625, and was sentenced to the judgment of winning the Plaintiff on August 12, 2016.

The plaintiff is seeking damages caused by the defendant's illegal decision to invalidate the election as the lawsuit of this case.

In this regard, the defendant did not have the obligation to pay the cost of lawsuit, and the defendant did not have the obligation to pay the cost of the lawsuit except the principal salary.

The defendant assistant intervenor asserts that there is no illegality in filing an objection against the plaintiff's election chief director with the defendant election commission, and that the defendant assistant intervenor's objection or decision made by the defendant election commission.

2. The lower court held that: (a) on February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff left the Defendant’s election president, which was held at the ordinary general meeting of the Defendant’s Representatives, up to two (2) candidates.

② On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a message to some of the representatives who have voting rights during an election campaign, stating that “B will offer the comprehensive inspection right and two special promotional expenses, and raise the general meeting allowance at KRW 100,000,00,000,” and on January 27, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a message to the effect that “(2) chief director and vice chief director will also make a decision at KRW 2.”

③ On January 27, 2016, the Defendant Election Commission held a meeting with authoritative interpretation of the Korea Federation that the sending of the above message may be an election campaign in violation of the D Depository Act, and expressed its view that the Plaintiff would no longer deal with the sending of the message as stated in the said paragraph (2) if the Plaintiff consented to the withdrawal of the message as indicated in the said paragraph.