The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, it is reasonable to accept this case in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the court’s explanation is the same as the ground of the judgment of the first instance, except where the court partially renders or adds the judgment

(1) The court of first instance and its determination are justifiable in rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion even if all the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the court of appeal do not differ from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, and the court of first instance and the court of appeal rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion. The court of first instance and its determination are justifiable in rejecting the Defendant’s assertion. The court of first instance and the court of first instance read “The circumstance that the Defendant provided the above materials to the listed company, etc., by opening an explanatory meeting pertaining to the external audit system on a national scale, explain the reasons for exception or provided the above materials.” The court of first instance added “The circumstance that the Defendant provided the above materials to the listed company, etc.,” and added “

The following shall be added between the 7th sentence of the first instance and the 4th sentence:

“F) If G Accounting Corporation, which became a new external auditor according to the instant disposition, has conducted a semi-annual review of the Plaintiff’s business year from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020, presented “reasonable opinion” that there is no error in handling the Plaintiff’s accounts, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s change of the largest shareholder cannot be deemed as “where there is a high possibility of illegality of accounting due to a dispute over management rights,” but the Defendant’s disposition of this case is an abuse of discretionary power solely on the ground that the largest shareholder is changed.

However, as seen earlier, the instant disposition is an exception to the issue, if it satisfies the requirements of Article 11(1) of the External Audit Act due to the major shareholder’s change not less than twice (2/3 change) in the last three years as at the time of the disposition.