2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Text 1 of the judgment of the first instance; and

2. Determination as to the assertion by Defendant Special Representative

A. The Defendant’s special representative B argues to the effect that the decision on the appointment of a special representative should be cancelled, on the ground that the Defendant’s special representative was appointed as the Defendant’s special representative, and there is a risk of causing property damage caused by the appointment of the Defendant’s special representative and forced the response without good cause, on the ground that he/she was registered as a director in the Defendant’s corporate registry, even though he/she was registered as the Defendant’s director at the request of the F representative at the time.

B. A person who is appointed as a special representative is not entitled to appeal against the decision accepting the application for the appointment of a special representative, but is only entitled to urge the court to replace the special representative (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 63Ma4, May 2, 1963). The above assertion by the defendant special representative is without merit.

However, the above assertion is presumed to be a legitimate director appointed by due process, unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu331, Dec. 27, 1983).