A. In-house directors based on resignation on April 10, 2019 to Plaintiff (Appointed Party), Appointed C, and D.

According to the statements and the purport of Gap evidence 1-1-1, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff"), the selected party C, and D, appointed as the defendant's inside director on February 23, 2016, and the registration of inside director was completed on the full registration certificate of the defendant corporation. The appointed party E was appointed as the defendant's outside director on August 17, 2016 and completed registration of outside director on August 18, 2016. It is clear that the records of this case was delivered to the defendant on April 10, 2019, in which the copy of the complaint of this case stating the defendant's declaration of resignation from the defendant's outside director, and the appointed party E was delivered to the defendant on April 10, 2019.

Judgment

A. The relationship between the company and directors shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provision on delegation of the Civil Act, so a director may resign at any time.

(2) According to Article 382(2) of the Commercial Act and Article 689(1) of the Civil Act, the above facts are as follows: (a) the delegation contract between the Plaintiff and the designated parties and the Defendant as an internal director or outside director was lawfully terminated on April 10, 2019; (b) the Defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registering the resignation of an internal director on the ground of resignation on April 10, 2019 to the Plaintiff, the selected parties C, and D; and (c) to the selected parties E on April 10, 2019.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the claim of this case should be dismissed since the Plaintiff and the designated parties, as the actual owner of the Defendant, have first disposed of the resignation of the representative director F and in-house directors G, and have taken into account the dissolution of the corporation. However, this is irrelevant to the declaration of resignation of the Plaintiff and the designated parties, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant refused the implementation of the procedures for the registration of resignation of internal directors or outside directors of the Plaintiff and designated parties. Thus,

The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.