2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff holds 25% of the total number of shares issued by the Defendant’s 400,000 shares in its own name, and holds 10% in the name of E, and hold 5% in the name of F.

B. From the previous date, G, H, and I had been in the Defendant’s position as the Defendant’s in-house director position, and the Defendant’s regular shareholders’ meeting held on January 20, 2013 that G, H, and D were appointed as an in-house director, but the Plaintiff strongly went against this.

C. On November 29, 2013, G of the Defendant’s representative director, around 15:00 on December 13, 2013, “Around December 13, 2013, a temporary general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”) is held at the representative director office in the seat of the Defendant’s head office on the appointment of new auditors, former auditors, dismissal of former auditors, and re-election of these photographs, etc.

On December 13, 2013, the general meeting of shareholders of this case convened on December 13, 2013, dismissed the Plaintiff who was an auditor of the Defendant, appointed C as an auditor, and re-appointed D who was appointed as an internal director at the Defendant’s general meeting of shareholders on January 20, 2013.

‘Resolution' has been adopted.

E. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on January 2, 2014, within two months from the date of the general meeting of shareholders of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, each entry and video (including those with more than one number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion of the defect in the convocation procedure and its determination 1) The defendant should have held the board of directors in the convening of the general meeting of this case, but did not have issued a notice of convening the board of directors to the auditor of the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant did not take the procedure for identifying the shareholders who shall exercise their voting rights at the general meeting of this case. Therefore, since the procedure for convening the general meeting of this case is defective in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, the resolution shall be revoked. 2) The defendant's argument