A. The Defendant Company is a juristic person established for the purpose of manufacturing motor vehicle parts, etc. on February 19, 2013, and the Plaintiff is a shareholder whose dismissal registration was completed on June 23, 2015, after he/she was registered as a director of the Defendant Company from June 14, 2013 to September 1, 2014, in which he/she was appointed as a joint representative director and became an internal director after going through a resolution of a temporary general meeting of shareholders held on May 20, 2015 (or with the consent of 91,000 shares present at the meeting of 130,000 shares).

B. At the time of the resolution of the special shareholders’ meeting on May 20, 2015, the grounds for dismissal of the Plaintiff are as follows:

(A) (No. 9) 1) lack of belonging to the Plaintiff due to the failure to participate in the single conference, the second half of 2014, the second half of 2014, the second half of 2014, in which the costs and inputs of the new project proposed by the Plaintiff are a significant factor in financial deterioration.

C. According to the order to submit documents in this Court, according to the register of shareholders dated April 27, 2016, the total number of outstanding shares issued by the Defendant Company held C 71,500 shares among 130,000 shares, the Plaintiff held 39,00 shares, and D held 19,50 shares among 130,00 shares.

The Plaintiff filed a claim for perusal and copy of the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders, financial statements, etc. with a specific reason that “it is necessary to verify whether the duties and accounting of the internal director have been properly performed” on several occasions before and during the litigation of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 19-1 through 5, 24, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The claim for damages resulting from unfair dismissal (Article 385(1) of the Commercial Act) provides that the term of office of a director under Article 30 of the Articles of incorporation of the defendant company shall be three years after his/her inauguration, and the plaintiff shall be guaranteed his/her term of office until February 17, 2016, but the defendant company dismissed the plaintiff, and thus the defendant company is obliged to pay the plaintiff a reasonable

Resolution of the Board of Directors No. 6, February 13, 2015