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

On May 13, 2016, the defendant was dismissed at a general meeting of shareholders on June 22, 2016.

The defendant also submitted a letter of resignation on July 2016.

Since then, the defendant is dissatisfied with the dismissal or resignation of the defendant on the ground that the payment of benefits is unpaid, and the plaintiff seeks to dismiss the defendant's internal director.

The legality of the instant lawsuit is examined ex officio by examining the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A lawsuit of formation aiming at the formation of an existing legal relationship may be instituted only where the law explicitly provides for the formation of a legal relationship, and where no legal ground exists, it shall not be permissible.

(2) Article 385(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “A shareholder who holds no less than 3/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares may request a court to dismiss a director within one month from the date of rejection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da35462, Sept. 14, 1993; 200Da45020, Jan. 16, 2001).” In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit in this case against the health class and the Plaintiff seeking the dismissal of the Defendant, who is an internal director of the Plaintiff.” However, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, taking into account the following: (a) a shareholder who holds no less than 3/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, may request a court to dismiss the director within one month from the date of rejection (Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act); (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion does not fall under the Plaintiff’s shareholder; and (d) the lawsuit in this case is not based on the legal basis of the Plaintiff’s legal provisions.

In conclusion, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, so it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.