1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s report on free use, profit-making, and allocation of store to the Plaintiff) around December 2006, on the ground of 3,798m2, Incheon Metropolitan City, which was created by reclaiming public waters by Incheon Metropolitan City, the building for fish market fishery product direct sales store (hereinafter “instant market”) on the ground of 3,798m2.

A) A new project was promoted. Around May 2008, after obtaining permission to implement a fishery harbor development project from Incheon Metropolitan City, the construction of the instant market was carried out by using subsidies of KRW 200 million and KRW 640 million borne by the Defendant as the construction cost. 2) At the same time, the instant market was approved for use on February 20, 209, and at the same time, it was reverted to Incheon Metropolitan City pursuant to Article 26(1) of the former Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors (amended by Act No. 9401, Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter “former Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors”).

The Defendant reported the free use and profit-making of the instant market. The Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City, on April 1, 2009, accepted the said report by setting the period of free use from January 20, 2009 to January 19, 2025.

3) The Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s fraternity, has borne KRW 17 million out of the costs of the new construction of the instant market, and the Defendant’s store No. 2 in the said market (hereinafter “instant store”).

(B) Around August 8, 2013, the Defendant’s representative was assigned. (b) Around the date of the expulsion against the Plaintiff, the Defendant submitted a letter of expulsion pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was “the Plaintiff illegally traded public property and substantially damaged the Defendant’s reputation” and that the Plaintiff was “the Plaintiff significantly damaged the Defendant’s reputation,” and notified the Plaintiff of the attendance and vindication of the special meeting on August 22, 2013.

2) At the Defendant’s extraordinary general meeting held on August 22, 2013, 18 of the total members of the 22nd members (excluding the Plaintiff himself/herself) present at the 18th members of the 22nd members (excluding the Plaintiff himself/herself) who agreed to the agenda, and 3 of the 15th members opposed to the proposal, the Plaintiff’s expulsion agenda was resolved (hereinafter “instant expulsion

C. The main contents of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation are attached.