1. It is confirmed that each of the resolutions listed in the separate sheet made by the Defendant at the temporary shareholders’ meeting on March 22, 2016 are null and void.

2...

1. The total number of shares issued by the Defendant indicating the claim is 10,000 shares, and the Plaintiff A owns 4,000 shares of the Defendant Company from March 5, 2014 to March 5, 201, and Plaintiff B owns 2,00 shares of the Defendant Company from March 27, 2014 to March 27, 2014.

The Defendant, at the temporary general meeting of shareholders held on March 22, 2016, made the same resolution as the attached Form (hereinafter “instant resolution”). However, the instant resolution is null and void in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff, the representative director of the said general meeting of shareholders, at the time of the said general meeting of shareholders, did not make a demand for convening the said general meeting; (b) the Plaintiff, A (40%) and B (2) did not make a demand for convening the meeting; and (c) the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff (20%) did not give a demand for convening the meeting; and (b) the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provide that “the directors of the company concerned are appointed by the attendance of the shareholders who hold shares equivalent to the majority of the total number of issued shares; (c) the Plaintiff, and B, who owned the majority or more

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable Act;

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff asserts that there is a serious defect in the convocation procedure of the resolution of this case or the method of resolution of this case and sought confirmation of invalidity, not the absence of the resolution of this case. It is identical in that both claims for confirmation of non-existence of the resolution of the general assembly or the claims for confirmation of invalidity are to be confirmed that the legally effective resolution does not exist at present. Thus, even if there is a claim for confirmation of nullity of the resolution with respect to the resolution of the general assembly which has no choice but to be viewed as a legal absence, it is legitimate as a claim for confirmation of nullity within the meaning of confirmation of non-existence (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1810, March 22, 1983).