A. On January 18, 2013, the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D were appointed as an internal director at the temporary general meeting of shareholders of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”). On February 4, 2013, the registration of the appointment was completed on the corporate register of the Defendant Co., Ltd.

On the other hand, on January 30, 2013, Defendant C is a person appointed as the representative director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C and D are shareholders holding 40% of shares of the Defendant Company and 24% of shares.

B. On January 18, 2013, when the Plaintiff was appointed as a director of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff was registered as an internal director in the corporate register of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

C. On April 29, 2013, Defendant Company: (a) held a special general meeting of shareholders on April 29, 2013 and passed a resolution on the removal of a director on the ground of a violation of a duty not to engage in competitive business under Article 397(1) of the Commercial Act against the Plaintiff; (b) however,

On May 23, 2013, Defendant D filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff as a shareholder of the Defendant Company for removal of directors under the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma521895, and on November 7, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall dismiss the Plaintiff from the Defendant Company’s director by determining that the Plaintiff breached its duty not to engage in competitive business under Article 397(1) of the Commercial Act.” However, the Plaintiff appealed against this decision and filed an appeal (Seoul High Court 2013Na2031685) on September 4, 2014, the appellate court revoked the said judgment of the first instance court and rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant D’s claim on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff violated the duty not to engage in competitive business under Article 397(1) of the Commercial Act and thereby violated the relevant laws and regulations.

Accordingly, Defendant D’s appeal was lodged against this, but the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da223537) rendered on February 12, 2015, and the final appeal became final and conclusive as it is.

E. Meanwhile, Defendant D filed a lawsuit to dismiss the above director, and the Seoul Central District Court.