1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant Union.

On February 27, 2015, the Defendant held a general meeting of dissolution (hereinafter “instant general meeting of dissolution”) with a resolution on the dissolution, etc. of the Defendant association on an agenda item, and there was a resolution to dissolve the Defendant association at the instant general meeting of dissolution.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the dissolution of the general meeting of this case is null and void

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the general meeting of dissolution of this case is null and void for the following reasons.

1) On February 23, 2015, the president of the Defendant Union was dismissed from office at an extraordinary general meeting. The instant dissolution general meeting was already held by C, which was already dismissed from office in the president of the association. (2) A’s order, proposed written written consent from the members of the association by threatening C to “not to give consent to the general meeting for dissolution of the association unless the association gives consent thereto.” The dissolution general meeting was based on the written consent submitted by such intimidation.

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. Determination 1) Taking account of the following circumstances as to whether there is any defect that the instant dissolved general meeting was not convened by a legitimate convening authority, the general meeting on February 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) is deemed to have been held on February 23, 2015.

(A) Article 23(4) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments provides that “The dismissal of partnership presidents may be made by the attendance of a majority of the partnership members and the consent of a majority of the union members at a general meeting convened at the proposal of at least 1/10 of the union members,” and the defendant’s association of the defendant’s articles of association, on the basis of the premise that the general meeting of dissolution of this case was convened by C, which was already dismissed from the partnership president.”