1. The Defendant registered the resignation of a representative director and an intra-company director on the ground of resignation on March 13, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a share purchase contract with C, the Plaintiff, who was the Defendant’s representative director, to purchase KRW 8,000 of the common shares of the Defendant Company (amounting to KRW 5,000 per share) at KRW 1,00,000. On December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff assumed office as a director and the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. After the Plaintiff assumed office as the representative director, he/she became aware of the current status of the Defendant Company’s failure to pay national taxes, and notified C of the cancellation of a share sales contract on March 12, 2015, the Plaintiff sent the letter of resignation of the director and the representative director (Evidence A 3) to “Seoul Gangseo-gu D and E”, which is the domicile of the Defendant Company, on March 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case filed by the F with the representative of the defendant is unlawful, since the plaintiff, even if he resigns the defendant's representative director, shall perform his duties until the new representative director is appointed even if he resigns, the defendant's representative is not the plaintiff himself and F.

However, according to the proviso of Article 383(1) of the Commercial Act, a company, the total amount of capital of which is less than one billion won, may have one or two directors, and Article 38 of the defendant's articles of incorporation shall also be the same purport. According to the statement in subparagraph 5 of Article 38 of the defendant's articles of incorporation, the defendant's capital is 10 million won and the defendant's director is recognized as the plaintiff and F. As long as the plaintiff's resignation is recognized as the plaintiff's resignation, F shall represent the defendant as the only director. Thus, the defendant

(F) On October 18, 2018, the Defendant alleged to the effect that he resigned from the Defendant’s office on October 18, 2018. However, on the above date, F is the only director of the Defendant, and F is the only director of the Defendant. Accordingly, F has the right and duty of directors until the successor director is appointed pursuant to Article 386 of the Commercial Act

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim.