1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine the safety defense of C itself, which is represented by the defendant's representative to determine the safety defense of this case, since it is not entitled to represent the defendant.

In addition to the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 7, the court's dismissal decision is rendered on April 26, 2013 (Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap1547, 79656 (Consolidated), Seoul High Court 201Na20289, 20296 (Consolidated), and Seoul High Court 201Na20296 (Consolidated), and Seoul High Court 201Da3934, 39444, 3941 (Consolidated)) in the case where C filed a lawsuit as the defendant's representative, on the ground that "No resolution by the board of directors of the defendant who appointed directors as directors is made nonexistent, E, F, and G cannot be a legitimate director."

According to the above facts, C, which is represented by the defendant, is not entitled to represent the defendant and is registered as a director in the register for the defendant. This applies to D, E, F, and G.

There is no other data to confirm the legitimate representative of the defendant.

(1) The Plaintiff had an opportunity to revise a person who represents the Defendant from March 20, 2018 to November 4, 2018 on the date of the first pleading on March 20, 2018. However, the Plaintiff failed to submit any material. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was unlawful, deeming that it was filed by representing C as the representative who is not entitled to represent the Defendant.

(C) The Plaintiff’s claim is based on the premise that the Defendant disposed of the basic property without the permission of the supervisory authority, and according to the facts acknowledged in the above-mentioned case, the Plaintiff had already been permitted to dispose of the basic property before the time of disposition alleged by the supervisory authority).