1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The court of first instance held a meeting of representatives to elect one chief director, one vice chief director, and seven directors on December 10, 2014. C and the plaintiff, who were the chief director at the time, were recruited as a candidate for the chief director; C and the same month as December 3, 2014, respectively;

5. Among 11 persons, 7 persons (including F, G, H, I, J, K, and L were present at the first meeting of the first meeting of the board of directors, and the second meeting of the board of directors, on behalf of L, other than M, during the second meeting of the board of directors, the composition of the participants was the same as that of the first meeting of the board of directors) are gathered at the restaurant, and the chief of the board of directors, at the same time so that he/she does not interfere with his/her deposit money, and at the last election, he/she was so open so that he/she does not detached the deposit money, and the fact that he/she calculated the amount of meal expenses of all the participants after the meal (hereinafter referred to as "1 and the second meeting"), 98 votes by 103 representatives, and the plaintiff obtained C50 votes and the defendant decided as the elected person of the board of directors of the case, and hereinafter referred to as "the majority of the board of directors of the case").

At the time, the Community Credit Cooperatives Act or the articles of incorporation recognized the prohibition of offering money and entertainment, or allowing members to gather at a specific place by means of an election campaign by executives.

Based on such fact-finding, the court of first instance has a significant influence over C, such as serving as the chief director of the defendant office or the president of the basic local government council for a long time. The date when C took the first and second meetings of this case was a sensitive period that did not go against election, six persons who participated in the first and second meetings, and six persons who have voting rights were present at the first and second meetings, but the number of votes of the plaintiff and C was less than three; the number of votes of the plaintiff and C was less than three; the defendant was found guilty of having violated the Community Credit Cooperatives Act by making the first and second meetings of this case.