1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the plaintiffs as to the claim to nullify the resolution of the provisional shareholders' meeting of plaintiffs A, B, C, and D.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Defendant is a corporation established on February 19, 197 with the construction waste disposal business, etc. as its business purpose. 2) The Plaintiff was appointed or appointed as the Defendant’s internal director on June 16, 2014, Plaintiff E as the Defendant’s manager on June 23, 2014, Plaintiff B as the Defendant’s internal director on September 24, 2015, Plaintiff C as the Defendant’s representative director and internal director on the same day, and Plaintiff D as the Defendant’s auditor on the same day.

B. On November 20, 2015, as the Defendant’s shareholder, H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) and I filed an application for a provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties with the purport that “Plaintiff B shall not perform the Defendant’s internal director duties, Plaintiff C’s representative director duties and internal director duties, and Plaintiff D shall not perform the Defendant’s audit duties.”

On November 23, 2015, the above court appointed attorney J as the Plaintiff C’s acting representative.

C. On January 11, 2016, an attorney J filed an application for permission to convene an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders on December 14, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant permission decision”) with the Gwangju District Court 2015 non-hap5022, (i) Plaintiff A, B, and C from the Defendant’s internal director, (ii) from the Defendant’s audit, Plaintiff D from the Defendant’s manager, and (iii) from the Defendant’s director, and (ii) from the Defendant’s office to permit the convening of an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders to deliberate and resolve on the items of appointment of K, L, and I as the Defendant’s director, and M as the Defendant’s auditor. (ii) The said court accepted the application for permission to convene the above general meeting of shareholders on December 14, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant general meeting of shareholders”). Accordingly, Attorney J convened the Defendant’s provisional general meeting of shareholders as the “Attorney J’s office in the Dong-gu.”

At the time, Attorney J, who is the shareholder of the defendant's shareholder registry, notified in writing the defendant's shareholder registry, H, I, L, P, Q, R, T, and C of the convening of a provisional shareholders' meeting, and in the case of the plaintiff D.