1. The appeal by the defendant-joint-litigation assistant intervenor is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the co-litigation of the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a company established to manage a store with 3,700 stores in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D's 3,700, and the plaintiff is the defendant's shareholder.

The supplementary intervenor who is the defendant's co-litigation (hereinafter referred to as "participating") is a person appointed as an internal director at the defendant's temporary general meeting of shareholders held on November 20, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "final general meeting of shareholders of this case").

B. The Defendant’s 22 shareholders, including E and F, etc., are the Defendant’s minority shareholders, filed an application for a convocation of a general meeting for the purpose of the meeting by the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Mohap98, the Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Mohap98”) to grant permission for the convocation of a general meeting of shareholders for the purpose of the meeting. The above court rejected the dismissal of the directors G and I on November 6, 2007, on the ground that “the dismissal of the directors G and I was dismissed at the general meeting of shareholders on July 18, 2007, and the auditor J voluntarily resigned and newly appointed K at the general meeting of shareholders on July 18, 207” on the ground that “the appointment of one director after the resignation of the director on June 14, 2007,” and dismissed the remaining application (hereinafter “instant decision to grant the convocation of this case”).

(2) 22 persons, including E and F, convened a temporary general meeting (hereinafter “the first general meeting”) in accordance with the instant decision on permission to convene the meeting, and determined that the appointment of one director, such as L, etc. entrusted to the chairperson of the promotion committee for holding the meeting of this case, cannot be excluded from the existing executive organ, and to appoint 8 directors against the above decision, “a notice stating false facts to the effect that the Defendant would exclude the executive organ of this case and conduct a temporary general meeting in accordance with the purport of the shareholders” shall be sent to shareholders, and the temporary general meeting of shareholders to be held.