The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court acknowledged the following facts.

(1) The defendant is an unincorporated association consisting of members of the Association B, and the plaintiff is a member of the defendant.

(2) The Defendant’s articles of incorporation stipulate that the candidate of the branch office must meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Election Regulations (hereinafter “Election Management Regulations”) (Article 13(7)), and that the election management regulations provide that one of the requirements for the candidate of the branch office is required to wear the terminal (which is an organization providing the call service, various card approval, settlement service, etc.; hereinafter “the appropriate call”) of the appropriate call taxi as of the date of the registration of the candidate, and that the appropriate call fee should be paid in full as of the date of the registration of the candidate.

(1) On October 24, 2014, the Defendant’s election commission publicly announced that the candidate for the head of a branch should install a suitable call during his/her term of office before his/her candidate and his/her election after his/her candidate was elected, with the election day on October 24, 2014 as “1.7,” and “29, October 29, 2014 and October 30, 2014.”

(4) However, even if the Defendant’s temporary management committee convened on October 28, 2014 did not install a suitable call only for the 12th executive officers’ election, the head of the branch office shall be allowed to run the candidate.

‘The agenda was resolved, which was posted on the defendant's office bulletin date.

After that, D obtained 58.85% from the above election, it was decided as the elected person of the branch office.

(5) At the time of the establishment of the D-Pet taxi, the Plaintiff joined the device as a member and operated the device, was subject to a disposition for expulsion from the Defendant, and the Defendant continued to file a lawsuit claiming this issue, and the Defendant replaced the device of the D-Pet taxi from the old to the new type, and D refused its replacement.

2. The lower court, based on the foregoing factual basis, shall D for the following reasons.