1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant shall not perform his duties as internal directors and representative directors of C.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff and the Defendant have served as the representative director and in-house director of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) which are book publishing companies.

C The shares issued by C are total of 60,00 shares. The shares issued by the Plaintiff (18,00 shares), the Plaintiff’s spouse D(12,00 shares), the Defendant (18,00 shares), and the Defendant’s spouse E (12,00 shares), and C’s capital amount is KRW 300,000.

On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the board of directors of the convocation of an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders for the resolution to dismiss the Defendant, and of the convocation of the board of directors to hold a meeting from January 12, 2016 to January 11, 2016. The Defendant delegated F with the attendance of the board of directors on behalf of the Defendant on January 11, 2016.

Accordingly, on January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appeared at the meeting of the board of directors held on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant’s voting rights were restricted on the grounds that the Defendant had special interests with respect to the case of convening a temporary general meeting of shareholders held for the resolution of dismissal against the Defendant, and a resolution was made to hold a temporary general meeting of shareholders held on January 28, 2016 by the Plaintiff, who is the remaining director, with the resolution of dismissal of the Defendant

Accordingly, the plaintiff sent a notice of convening a special shareholders' meeting to the defendant and E on the same day.

On January 28, 2016, C’s temporary general meeting of shareholders held on January 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”), only the Plaintiff and D attended, and the Plaintiff and D resolved to dismiss the Defendant from office directors with the consent of all the shareholders present at the meeting.

(hereinafter referred to as the “resolution of this case”). [The ground for recognition] The defendant’s resolution of this case as to Gap’s written evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 11 through 15, and as to the main claim of the entire pleadings, and the defendant’s assertion of this case is a company’s decision-making, which is the subject of legal relationship. Thus, the plaintiff’s right is guaranteed only when it is confirmed as to the existence or validity of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.