1. The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) A from the director on October 2, 2013 and from the auditor C, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is an incorporated foundation established to maintain literature and seedlings in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and to operate educational and academic projects and promote the promotion of inducement and development of culture.

나. 원고(선정당사자, 이하 ‘원고’라고만 한다) A는 2011. 12. 4.경부터 피고의 이사로, 선정자 C은 같은 달 4일부터 피고의 감사로 각 재직하여 왔다(이하 원고 A 및 선정자 C을 함께 가리켜 ‘원고 등’이라 한다). 원고 등은 '피고 대표인 D이 E의 장의(掌儀, 향교의 총회에 출석하여 의결권을 행사할 수 있는 직책) 및 피고의 이사에서 제명되었다’는 내용의 허위문서를 만들어 서울시 구청 등에 배포함으로써 피고의 명예를 실추시켰다.

In addition, the defendant filed an application for the destruction of the Gu building to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the new construction of the Yulim Center, but the Seoul Special Metropolitan City returned the above application for permission on the ground that it is unclear whether the decision of destruction of the defendant's board of directors is legitimate due to

Plaintiff

Such acts constitute acts that interfere with the defendant's business affairs concerning the construction of the forest center.

Therefore, there is a reason to dismiss the plaintiff et al. under Article 7 (1) through (3) of the defendant's articles of association.

C. On August 20, 2013, the Defendant held a temporary directors meeting on August 20, 2013, and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff A from the board of directors and from the auditor C, for the following reasons:

(hereinafter “Resolution of the Board of Directors on August 20, 2013”) D.

However, the resolution of the board of directors on August 20, 2013 was made by the attendance of only nine persons who are less than 2/3 of the total number 14 of the registered directors and the quorum was not satisfied.

E. Accordingly, on October 2, 2013, the Defendant again held ad hoc director meeting and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff, etc.

hereinafter referred to as "the resolution of the board of directors of this case"

(f) Of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, the provisions pertaining to this case are as follows.