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 reasons for the court’s explanation of this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant’s additional argument in the trial of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[1] The Defendant clearly separates the Housing Act-related statutes and the instant regulations from the “ex officio” and the “disqualification”. Article 12(1) of the instant regulations clearly states that “A partner cannot withdraw from a cooperative at will, and if a partner intends to withdraw from a cooperative, he/she shall notify the head of the cooperative in writing 15 days prior to the withdrawal, and the head of the cooperative shall decide whether to withdraw from the cooperative by a resolution of a general meeting.” It limits voluntary withdrawal by stipulating that the Plaintiffs, as a member, voluntarily cause disqualified conditions by disqualification for the head of a household through a change in the name of the householder, are against Article 12(1) of the instant regulations regarding the restriction on voluntary withdrawal, and thus, it should not be granted the effect of refunding contributions due to the disqualification for the head of the household unless following the procedure prescribed in the instant provision. However, the instant regulations do not clearly stipulate the following circumstances, i.e., voluntary withdrawal (Article 12(1)) and automatic (Article 12(2)) of the instant regulations that prohibit a partner from being removed or a partner.