1. The part requesting the dismissal of the representative director among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.
2. Defendant B, Inc.
1. We examine the part concerning the claim for dismissal of the representative director among the lawsuit of this case, ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for dismissal of the representative director.
Unless otherwise stipulated in the articles of incorporation, the company selects the representative director by a resolution of the board of directors. Thus, even if the articles of incorporation (Evidence A 3) of Defendant C, the appointment of the representative director is not a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders
(Article 20). With respect to the removal of the representative director, the provisions governing the action for removal of the director under Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act shall not apply.
In addition, the representative director is based on the premise that he is a director, and if the representative director's misconduct exists in the performance of his duties, he can deprive him of his status through a lawsuit to dismiss the director, so there is no benefit to claim dismissal of the representative director
Therefore, this part of the lawsuit by the plaintiff is unlawful.
2. Judgment on the claim for removal of directors
(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;
(b) Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;