The Defendant was an actual operator as the auditor of Ulsan-gun B Co., Ltd., and the Defendant established D and C, thereby operating the “E” franchise business as a partnership business, and the dispute arose due to profit distribution.

D A around May 7, 2015, the defendant, etc. is dismissed from office by the auditor, etc. of C Co., Ltd. and the same year.

6.9. Around the 16th of the same month, all of the businesses of C were transferred to F, a corporation established by himself, and thereafter continued the “E” franchise business by transferring the ownership of the above G land and building in the name of C to H, a corporation, around the same month.

The defendant filed a lawsuit against D, etc. to confirm the invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, applied for suspension of the representative director's performance of duties and provisional disposition of appointment of proxy. The Ulsan District Court has

7.1. Attorneys I were appointed as a substitute for a lawyer.

In addition, on April 5, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the said G land and building against H, and transferred the ownership of the said land and building in the name of C.

Although the Defendant appointed an attorney-at-law as his agent, he had been willing to operate the “E” franchise business using facilities and materials of the Co., Ltd. at his own discretion, at the Defendant’s discretion, using the said G land and buildings that were restored to the name of the Co., Ltd.

1. On August 20, 2016, the Defendant stolen, as truck 4, 8 mobile lending vehicles managed by the attorney-at-law as a proxy without obtaining the consent of the attorney-at-law who was duly appointed by the court at the Seoul Special Metropolitan CityJ, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the Defendant, as well as 1,500 slicks.

2. In order to prepare and send written statements in C’s name, the Defendant did not obtain the consent of attorney I who was duly appointed by the court, despite the consent of attorney I who was duly appointed by the court.