1. On January 12, 2017, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendant’s election of the chief director implemented on January 12, 2017 was elected as the chief director.

2...

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, 5, and 8 (including provisional numbers, the same shall apply hereinafter);

(i)each entry, witness D’s testimony, witness E’s partial testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. On January 12, 2017, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting and held an election to elect the chief director (hereinafter “instant election”). Of 115 representatives present at the instant election, the Plaintiff was aggregated with 56 marks and F obtained 55 marks, and the remainder of 4 marks was treated as invalid.

B. The ballot paper used in the above election was as follows, and one of the 4 marks which was disposed of as invalid, was the blank ballot paper with no marking (""), and the remaining 3 marks were put on the name column or symbol column other than the marking column. However, it was one mark for each of the marks on the Plaintiff's name column and symbol column to which the mark is put on the Plaintiff's name column and mark column.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant voting”) 3 marks that have been put in the name column or symbol column and have been invalid, and are marked in it, 3 marks that have been put in the C Saemaul Fund Chairperson’s election signs 12 AF (F) / [Ballot in the column of column of marks]

C. According to the Defendant’s executive election rules (hereinafter “instant rules”), a person who has obtained a majority of the electors present at the meeting is elected as the president. The Defendant’s election commission (hereinafter “Defendant’s election commission”) did not decide the elected person on the ground that the Defendant did not have obtained a majority vote in the instant election because all of the instant votes were invalid.

On January 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant election on the Defendant’s line, on the ground that the vote obviously made to him was treated as an invalid vote, but the Defendant’s prior order dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on January 25, 2017.

Article 29 (Invalid Votes) (1) A vote falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be null and void:

1. Where the regular ballot paper is not used;

2. Where the marks are put in two or more columns;

(a) The method of putting the ballot paper on each executive position;