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

A. On October 22, 2018, the Defendant was established with the business purposes of electricity, telecommunications, equipment sales, wholesale and retail business, etc. and registered as the Jeju Tax Office on October 25, 2018, but filed a report on the closure of business on July 12, 2019. The Plaintiff is a shareholder and internal director holding 84,000 shares, equivalent to 24% out of 350,000 shares issued by the Defendant.

B. On October 22, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a copy of the minutes of the board of directors related to the closure of business to his/her address, but did not receive the same until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

According to Article 391-3(3) and (4) of the Commercial Act, a shareholder may file a request for perusal or reproduction of the minutes of the board of directors during business hours, but the company may refuse such request with reasons attached thereto, and in such a case, a shareholder may peruse or copy the minutes of the board of directors with permission of the court. Since the permission case, such as perusal, etc. of the minutes of the board of directors under Article 391-3(4) of the Commercial Act, is a non-contentious case as provided for in Article 72(1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, it is not allowed to request perusal or reproduction of the minutes of the board of directors by means of civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da42604, Mar. 28, 2013; 2013Da50367, Nov. 28, 2013). Therefore, the lawsuit

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.