2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

2. The Defendant asserts that Article 429 of the Commercial Act provides that the invalidity of the issuance of new shares may be asserted only by the suit within six months from the date of the issuance of new shares only by shareholders, directors, or auditors. As such, the Plaintiffs asserted the invalidation through the preparatory document on the same date as of March 9, 2016, since the Plaintiff did not state any grounds for invalidation in the complaint of the instant case and the period of the release was expired six months from the date of the issuance of new shares, the Plaintiffs asserted that the invalidation of the issuance of new shares was the same as that of the instant lawsuit filed on March 9, 2016, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

On the other hand, Article 429 of the Commercial Act intends to determine a complicated legal relationship that may arise from the issuance of new shares early, and it is reasonable to interpret that the time of claim for invalidation is restricted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da49380, Nov. 15, 2012). However, as in the instant case, a lawsuit seeking invalidation of the issuance of new shares was filed by taking into account the effect of the issuance of the instant case within the period of six months, and as long as the written complaint specifies the date of issuance of new shares and the new shares subject to confirmation, the claim and evidence were arranged after the period of release to claim specific invalidation.

As examined below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant complied with the period of release as long as the lawsuit was brought before the period of release, even if the above grounds for invalidation are allowed, as seen above. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

(a) 6 months after the lapse of the period of release;