1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant selected the Intervenor joining the Defendant as the entrusted agency of the petitioner center on October 21, 2013.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the first selection decision "a disposition invalidating the first selection decision" in Section 4(c)(7) of the judgment of the court of first instance is "a disposition invalidating the first selection decision" as "a disposition not selecting the plaintiff as an entrusted agency by notifying the plaintiff in writing that the first selection decision is null and void". Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The supplementary intervenor asserts to the effect that the supplementary intervenor is not entitled to dispute the illegality of each of the dispositions of this case since it is not recognized as identical to the "Korea Association of Disabled Persons with Disabilities and the Korean Association of Disabled Persons with Disabilities" and the plaintiff is not entitled to dispute the illegality of each of the dispositions of this case as the supplementary intervenor's branch office of the Korean Association of Disabled Persons with Disabilities and the Korean Association

(2) Where a certain organization establishes rules that have the nature of an association with its own purpose and has an organization based on such rules, including appointment of a decision-making body and a representative who is an executive body. A decision-making body or execution method is conducted by the principle of majority. regardless of the membership, withdrawal, etc. of its members, an organization itself continues to exist, regardless of the organization's method of representation, operation of a general meeting or board of directors, etc., composition of capital, management of property, and other important matters as a non-corporate body, it shall be deemed that it has the substance as a non-corporate body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da2431, Jul. 10, 1992; 9Da4504, Apr. 23, 199; 2007Da63683, May 29, 2008). This applies to a juristic person, even if it is a subordinate organization of a certain organization, since it has independent activities as an organization as a non-corporate body.