1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit against Defendant C shall be dismissed.

2...

1. Determination as to Defendant C’s defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant C’s assertion that the instant lawsuit was pending on March 24, 2017, when the instant lawsuit was pending, retired from office as Defendant C’s registered director.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

B. If a director of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is lawful, i.e., the pertinent legal principles) committed an unlawful act in connection with his duties, or a serious violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation despite the fact that the director’s dismissal was rejected at a general meeting of shareholders, a person who continues to hold shares equivalent to at least 50/10,000 (25/10,000 in the case of listed companies determined by Presidential Decree)

(B) (Article 385(2) and Article 542-6(3)(b) of the Commercial Act (Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act), however, the purpose of a lawsuit seeking dismissal by a minority shareholder is to resolve the delegation relationship existing between the company and the director before the expiration of the term of office. Thus, in the event that such a lawsuit seeking dismissal is pending and the relevant director retires to the expiration of the term of office, there is no interest in the lawsuit demanding dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da5926, Apr. 12, 196; 95Na4323, Dec. 14, 1995), No. 1, No. 15, and No. 15, according to the overall purport of oral proceedings, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking dismissal against Defendant C, a director of the Defendant company, was rejected at the general meeting of shareholders of the Defendant company held on March 11, 2016, pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Commercial Act.