1. A resolution on an agenda item No. 4 and 5 as indicated in the separate sheet among the resolution of the Defendant’s general assembly on March 30, 2014 is null and void.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a reconstruction maintenance and improvement project association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents for the purpose of removing buildings located within 35,288.10 square meters in Gwangju-si (road name address: D and housing site) and E (road name address: F and commercial site) in Gwangju-si, a project implementation district, and constructing new buildings on such land. The plaintiff is the co-owner of B1st floor in the commercial site of this case, who is the defendant's co-owner of B1st floor in the commercial site of this case.

B. On March 30, 2014, the Defendant passed a resolution at an ordinary general meeting on March 30, 2014, and passed a resolution on the agenda in the separate sheet while 359 members (328 members present by a written resolution, and 31 members present at the site) among 439 members present.

(2) On June 25, 2013, the general meeting resolution of this case (hereinafter “the general meeting resolution of this case”). The part on the agenda item No. 4 of the general meeting resolution of this case, prior to the establishment of the defendant, was prepared with a negotiation with the association members (hereinafter “the promotion committee of this case”) who are the separate owners of commercial buildings on June 25, 2013 to sell at least 150% of the shares in the previous commercial building site to the exclusive use area of the first floor of the newly constructed commercial building site. The execution agreement was anticipated that the association members (hereinafter “housing association members”) who are the divided owners of housing will bear approximately 17,00,000 won per household, the plaintiff demanded to include the above unreasonable implementation agreement in the defendant’s articles of association, and the plaintiff's negotiation with the district court No. 2013Gu954, Nov. 16, 2013 as the representative of the association members and the defendant's association members cannot be asserted as a partnership cancellation.