2. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) the par value of 5,000 won per July 20, 2015 is 44.4.

A. Defendant C is the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

B. The shares issued by Defendant B by July 20, 2015 were 64,00 common shares of KRW 5,000 at par value. Defendant C owned each of 12,000 shares, E, 10,000 shares, and mobile buses owned each of 4,00 shares.

C. On July 20, 2015, Defendant C had a resolution to issue 4,00 shares of new shares of KRW 5,000 (hereinafter “the instant resolution”) at the temporary shareholders’ meeting held by Defendant B’s other shareholders (hereinafter “the minutes of the temporary shareholders’ meeting of this case”), although Defendant C did not notify the other shareholders of the general shareholders’ meeting, and other shareholders did not actually appear, Defendant C arbitrarily prepared the minutes of the temporary shareholders’ meeting of this case (hereinafter “the minutes of the temporary shareholders’ meeting of this case”).

Since then, Defendant C acquired all new shares of this case at par value.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant C arbitrarily prepared the minutes of the shareholders’ meeting as if the resolution of this case was made without going through the convocation procedure and resolution procedure for the shareholders, and there is no resolution of this case.

Therefore, Defendant B’s issuance of new shares based on the instant resolution is nonexistent and thus, sought confirmation.

B. Article 429 of the Commercial Act provides that when there is a defect in the issuance of new shares, the Commercial Act allows the filing of a lawsuit to nullify the issuance of new shares, but the filing period is set as a short-term period of six months from the date of issuance of new shares (Article 429 of the Commercial Act). However, in cases where the procedural and substantive defect in the issuance of new shares are extremely serious, there is no issuance of new shares, the lawsuit may be