1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that seeks the revocation of the resolution to dismiss C from the representative director shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The shares issued by the Defendant Company at the time of May 12, 2016 are 40,000 shares in total.

Among them, the plaintiff and D have each 11,000 shares (27.5%) of E, 6,80 shares (17.0%) of E, and 11,200 shares of light machinery corporation (28.0 percent shares).

B. C is a person who served as an internal director and representative director of the Defendant Company from May 21, 2014.

C. D is a person who served as an intra-company director of the defendant company from March 25, 2005.

On April 27, 2016, D, an internal director of the Defendant Company, notified the shareholders of the Defendant Company, including the Plaintiff, to the effect that “The meeting room of the F head office of the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 12, 2016, submitted the resignation system and the representative director, the representative director due to non-performance of directors, and the dismissal and appointment of directors, shall hold a provisional general meeting of shareholders.”

E. “The Defendant Company, at the meeting room on May 12, 2016. 9:00, held a provisional shareholders’ meeting in accordance with the progress of in-house directors D for the Speaker pro tempore. At the meeting room on May 12, 2016, three of the four shareholders present (29,00 shares of the shareholders present among the total number of 40,000 shares) and made the instant resolution to dismiss C from the Defendant Company’s representative director and in-house director with the consent of all the shareholders present at the meeting, the minutes of the provisional shareholders’ meeting was prepared, and on May 20, 2016, the registration of the removal of the representative director and in-house director was completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 7, Eul evidence 5 (including the relevant branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following: (a) Defendant Company’s term of office expires on May 21, 2017; (b) C has already submitted a resignation certificate; and (c) does not dispute the instant resolution; (c) Defendant Company did not operate its business due to bankruptcy in 2014; and (d) has been resolved with the consent of shareholders holding a total number of shares issued by Defendant Company 72.5%, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of non-existence or invalidity of the instant resolution; and (b) there is no benefit to seek revocation.