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

On June 3, 2016, the defendant submitted a letter of resignation of representative director on June 3, 2016.

The defendant, after the resignation from the office of representative director, has forged a private document in the form of a flag that has not been appointed as a new representative director, and has committed an unlawful act such as making a change in the certificate of seal imprint of the company in this case.

The plaintiff seeks confirmation that the defendant is not in the position of director and representative director of the company of this case.

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the instant safety defense is unlawful on the ground that the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of a director or representative director’s position against the Defendant, who is not the instant company, has no interest in confirmation, and thus, is unlawful.

On the other hand, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the status of director and representative director, the legal relationship is the company. Thus, only by obtaining a confirmation of the non-existence of such status against the company, the plaintiff's right or legal status may be removed effectively from the risk or apprehensions as to the plaintiff's legal status. The confirmation judgment against the representative director who is not the company does not have the effect on the company, and there is no interest in the immediate confirmation, and thus, the lawsuit seeking such confirmation judgment is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da30676, 30683, Oct. 28, 2010). Thus, the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff against the defendant who is not the company of this case is invalid as the lawsuit of this case does not affect the company of this case and thus, there is no

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is dismissed as it is unlawful.