A. The Defendant is a company established on October 10, 2007 for the purpose of metal disposal business, automobile parts manufacturing and processing business, etc.

B. The Defendant established Plaintiff A and E, and 5,000 shares issued by Defendant 10,00 shares of 10,000 shares issued by the Defendant, are owned by Plaintiff A and their family members (C, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff B, and the remainder of 5,00 shares are owned by E and their family members (C, F, A, and I).

C. On January 8, 2018, the Defendant is “a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter referred to as “special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders”)”.

On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff A, an internal director, and a joint representative director, Plaintiff B, a director of the company, were dismissed on the same day. Moreover, D, E, and F were registered as a liquidator on the same day as the Defendant’s special resolution of the above general meeting of shareholders, and D were appointed as a representative liquidator on March 30, 2018. D. The duties of the liquidator, E, F, and representative liquidator were suspended until the judgment of this case became final and conclusive according to the provisional disposition of suspension of performance of duties by the Daegu District Court Decision No. 2018Kahap507 decided on March 30, 2018, and the duties of the liquidator, E, F, and representative liquidator were appointed as a representative liquidator. [No dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence No. 1, 2, 6, 15-5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. (1) The purport of recognizing the lawsuit modification system is to recognize the lawsuit modification system that adds a claim seeking non-existence of a non-existence of the non-existence of the special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on December 16, 2017, on the grounds that the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion is not the same as the Defendant’s special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on December 16, 2017.

Therefore, there is no change in the basis of the claim that there is a difference in the method of resolution in disputes concerning the same living facts or identical economic interests.

Supreme Court Decision 200