All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)’s act of preparing the first accusation in this case requires a resolution of the board of directors pursuant to Article 393(1) of the Commercial Act by borrowing new funds. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on the following grounds: (a) there was no fact that the board of directors of the Defendant Company was held at the time of the preparation of the first accusation in this case; (b) there was no consent of the registration director; (c) there was no consent of the registration director; and (d) the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of the Defendant Company on January 4, 2013 cannot be deemed to have been cured; and (d) it is insufficient to recognize

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, there were some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the lower judgment, but the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the defect of board of directors resolution, implied ratification, probative value of disposal documents, etc.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.