2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. While Defendant B owned a 627.8m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gwangju Mine-gu, and operated a restaurant in the relevant ground building, Defendant B agreed to newly construct accommodation facilities on the ground of the Plaintiff and the instant land to operate a telecom with his own business.

B. According to the above agreement, the Plaintiff and Defendant B established the Defendant Company for the purpose of tourist accommodation business, etc. on April 10, 2015. Defendant B was a inside director and a representative director of the Defendant Company on April 10, 2015, E was an inside director of the Defendant Company on April 10, 2015, and the Plaintiff was a inside director of the Defendant Company on April 10, 2015, respectively.

(PostE resigned from office on June 27, 2016). (C) The Defendant Company resigned from office.

The Defendant Company newly built accommodation facilities on the ground of the instant land, and started accommodation business from June 2016 to June 4, 2016 with the trade name called “Felel.”

At the time of the incorporation of the Defendant Company, 500 common shares of KRW 10,00 were issued. Of the above shares, 1,500 shares were allocated to the Plaintiff, and the remaining 3,500 shares were allocated to the Defendant B.

Since then, Defendant B transferred 1,500 shares out of the above shares to the Plaintiff. Defendant Company issued 10,000 shares of 10,000 common shares via capital increase with capital increase around June 28, 2016 and allocated 6,000 shares among them to the Plaintiff, and the remaining 4,00 shares to Defendant B.

Accordingly, among the total number of shares issued by Defendant Company 15,000 shares, the Plaintiff owned 9,000 shares (=1,500 shares 1,500 shares) and 6,000 shares (=3,500 shares - 1,500 shares) respectively.

E. On September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) received a decision to permit the convening of a general meeting of shareholders by the Gwangju District Court Decision 2017 Vihap5010; (b) held a temporary general meeting of the Defendant Company on September 25, 2017; and (c) prepared the minutes of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders that the dismissal of Defendant B was rejected as below the quorum.

F. The plaintiff, on the ground that he embezzled the funds of the defendant company that he had been under his occupational custody, B.