In order to conduct a travel business specialized in attracting Chinese tourists, the Defendant Company and Nonparty C and D acquired 3,00 shares of 100,000 shares issued by the Plaintiff among the total number of shares of 100,00 shares and appointed the Plaintiff as the representative director on April 3, 2009, and decided to appoint the first Plaintiff as the representative director. However, at the time, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Plaintiff’s wife as the representative director due to the relationship in which the Plaintiff was in office as the employee of another company.

On May 8, 2009, upon introduction of D, the Defendant Company entered into a contract on the entrusted operation of the hotel with the non-party F Co., Ltd. (Representative G) on the H hotel owned by G (hereinafter “instant hotel”). Around May 8, 2009, the Defendant Company suggested D to take charge of the actual operation of the instant hotel.

Unlike the plan, the plaintiff, C, and D did not facilitate the progress of the business, and even in the decision-making process, there was a dispute between shareholders and the company to sell the corporation on July 2009 and to recover the investment fund, but the sale of the investment fund was not possible due to the difference between shareholders.

On August 14, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant Company and was in charge of operating the instant hotel. On August 14, 2009, the Plaintiff, who was appointed as the representative director, was prepared only in the minutes without holding the general meeting of shareholders as of August 14, 2009. On May 31, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap4255 decided to suspend the performance of duties as the representative director, and D was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant Company.

[Based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 19, 20, 23 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 13 through 16, 23, 26, 29, 34 through 36 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 13 through 16, 23, 26, 29, 34 through 36, and Eul evidence Nos. 9, according to the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the plaintiff's account of the defendant company is 86,56,00 won over 20 times from August 13, 2009 to June 4, 2010.