Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. C, the representative director of the Defendant, is the largest shareholder holding approximately 51% of the total number of shares issued by the Defendant, 500,000 shares, and has been managing the Defendant for about 40 years. The Plaintiff is the head of C from July 1, 2013 to the managing director of C, who served as the Defendant’s managing director from September 2, 2013 to July 25, 2014. The Plaintiff is the shareholder holding 5,426 shares, which are 1.08% of the total number of shares issued by the Defendant.

B. On July 25, 2014, the Defendant made a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff from office as an internal director at the temporary general meeting of shareholders on July 25, 2014, and to appoint D and E as an internal director.

After that, D was appointed on February 10, 2015 by the defendant's representative director.

C. On March 4, 2015, the Defendant made a resolution on each agenda indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant resolutions”) including the content of re-election C, D, and E as an internal director at a regular general meeting of shareholders held on March 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination are the cause of the instant claim. At the time of the instant general meeting of shareholders, C had the capacity to perform his/her duties due to severe dementia, and thus, C’s exercise of voting rights at the general meeting of shareholders, the largest shareholder of C, who holds approximately 51% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, is null and void. Accordingly, each of the instant resolutions should be revoked on the ground that there

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that C had a state of his/her own ability at the time of the general meeting of shareholders as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 6 and 10-1, 2, 3, 11, and 12 of the evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul 13, C’s mental evaluation conducted for C at the Seoul University Hospital from March 26, 2015 to April 8, 2015, which was after the general meeting of shareholders of this case, was lower than normal, but did not interfere with daily life.