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

A. On April 19, 201, the Plaintiff is a stock company with the main business purpose of electric control devices engineering, etc. and C was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff on April 19, 201, and was dismissed on April 2, 2014.

B. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff (the representative director at that time was C) entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant factory”) in the purchase price of KRW 6,450,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Busan District Court No. 9810 on March 12, 2014.

In this process, C did not have been subject to the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence 2, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The resolution of the board of directors is required for the sale of important assets of a stock company. However, there was no resolution of the board of directors concerning the disposal of the instant factory, which is the Plaintiff’s important assets, and the Defendant knew or could have known such circumstances. Thus, the instant sales contract is null and void.

B. The instant sales contract is null and void since it did not undergo a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders in the event that the disposal of the company’s business property results in the transfer or closure of the whole or part of the company’s business.

C. C, the representative director of the Plaintiff, had concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant under the intent of personal gain. The instant sales contract is an abuse of the power of representation by C, and the Defendant knew or could have known such circumstances, and thus, the instant sales contract is null and void.

As long as the instant sales contract is null and void, the Defendants were based on the Plaintiff’s restoration of title.