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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

(2) On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was in the Defendant’s position as a director at the time of the instant general meeting of shareholders since there is no final judgment that “the Defendant dismissed the Defendant’s appeal” under the order of the appellate court judgment (Seoul High Court 2017Na203072) since the Plaintiff’s appeal was not stated in the order of the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2017Na203072) after the reversal and return of the case for confirmation of existence of the resolution of the Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders.”

However, the Seoul High Court Decision 2017Na203072 did not indicate in the disposition of the defendant's appeal on the ground that "(the appeal filed under the name of the defendant) by the defendant, who is the defendant joining the defendant, representing that he is the representative of the defendant, cannot be deemed a legitimate representative of the defendant," and therefore, there is no omission of any trial on the defendant's appeal (However, the order for dismissing the appeal filed by the defendant joining the defendant with the status of the defendant joining the defendant, which was decided by E as the defendant joining the defendant). The plaintiff was unable to perform his duties as a director of the defendant company according to the provisional disposition decision

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.

3. Conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.