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

A. The defendant is a company established on April 29, 2009 for the purpose of resource recycling business, etc. and the total number of shares issued is 10,000 shares.

On April 29, 2009 and March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s inside director and the representative director, but retired on March 28, 2015, and C continued to serve as the Defendant’s inside director from April 29, 2009, and C’s son was appointed as the Defendant’s auditor on April 29, 2009 and March 28, 2012, but retired on March 28, 2015.

B. On March 16, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s representative director, issued a notice of convening a regular general meeting of shareholders in 2015 (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”) with the objective of “approval of financial statements in 2014 and appointment of directors and auditors”)” as the Defendant’s representative director on March 31, 2015, and also issued a notice of convening a general meeting of shareholders in 2015 (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”). In addition, the Plaintiff and the CD were undergoing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of shareholders’ rights between the Plaintiff and the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court, and thus, the Plaintiff refused the exercise of voting rights against C’s 500 shares, D’s 1,500 shares, and the Plaintiff’s election of two directors by means of a concentrated voting system on March 13, 2015.”

However, at the time, the register of shareholders was registered as holding 3,00 shares issued by the Plaintiff (30%) and D 6,00 shares (60%) and C 1,00 shares (10%).

C. On March 31, 2015, at the general meeting of shareholders of the instant case held by the Defendant on March 31, 2015, the shareholder himself attended by C (total of 70%) as a shareholder D’s agent, and the Plaintiff (total of 30%) as a shareholder was present

However, while the Plaintiff, a representative director, was the president, notified that he refused the exercise of voting rights to 2,00 shares of CDs on the ground of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of shareholder rights (=C 500 shares D 1,50 shares). It is unreasonable that C unilaterally limits shareholder's voting rights, and it cannot be restricted without any provisional disposition prohibiting shareholder's exercise of shareholder rights.

‘....'