1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts that have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in records.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant by asserting that the Plaintiff’s share capital for 40,000 shares issued by the Defendant was a beneficial shareholder who paid the Defendant’s total share capital for 40,000 shares, and that the shareholders’ general meeting on October 19, 2014, which cannot be seen as a beneficial shareholder without a notice of convening the Plaintiff, was held. On May 12, 2015, the Defendant allocated and issued shares 27,50 shares listed in the attached Table 3 list to the said C without a notice of subscription for new shares issued under Article 419(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s preemptive right.

B. On March 30, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment that partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim, and the main text of the judgment was determined.

Details are as follows:

(Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015Gahap1640 Decided March 30, 2016). 27,500 shares listed in the separate sheet No. 3 were issued on May 12, 2015. The Plaintiff sought confirmation of the invalidity of the issuance of the above shares through the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim as of December 31, 2015. Thus, this part of the lawsuit is dismissed for the lapse of the exclusion period.

Of the shares 40,000 shares listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff is a shareholder of 20,000 shares is not disputed, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion (title trust toC) on the remaining 20,000 shares. Therefore, this part of the claim is accepted only for 20,000 shares, and the remainder is dismissed.

It is confirmed that there is no defect in the convocation procedure of the resolution by the general meeting of the shareholders of October 19, 2014, because there is a serious defect in the convocation procedure of the resolution by the general meeting of shareholders of October 19, 2014, without a notice for convening one of the two shareholders who own the shares issued by the defendant at the same ratio.

C. The plaintiff 1 appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and the appellate court did not dispute the part against which the judgment of the appellate court lost.