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

The plaintiff asserts that he/she was formally employed as a director of the defendant's in-house and resigned on March 27, 2019, and sought to implement the registration procedure for resignation of inside directors against the defendant.

The fact that only the plaintiff was registered as the inside director of the defendant, and the fact that the defendant's capital was 50,000,000 is significant or recognized by the records in this court.

Pursuant to Article 383(1) of the Commercial Act, at least one director shall be appointed for a stock company, the total capital of which is less than one billion won. Even if the plaintiff resigned from the defendant's position as an inside director as alleged by him/her, he/she has the rights and obligations of directors pursuant to Article 386(1) of the Commercial Act until the newly appointed director assumes office. In such cases, only the registration of retirement of the retired director due to his/her resignation

(See Supreme Court en banc Order 2004Ma800 Decided March 8, 2005). In addition, the Plaintiff’s claim for the appointment of a director on behalf of himself/herself in accordance with Article 386(2) of the Commercial Act (the Plaintiff also constitutes a director prescribed in the above provision, which can make such a claim; see Supreme Court Order 76Ma394 Decided December 10, 1976) can achieve the purpose of filing the instant lawsuit. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not have a benefit of lawsuit.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.