1. The part requesting the dismissal of the representative director among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant C, Inc.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a corporation engaged in the export and import business, such as electricity saving year fees and Gaelel, etc.

B. On October 22, 2003, the Plaintiff established the Defendant Company along with D, and owned 50% shares issued by the Defendant Company (5,000 shares out of 10,000 shares issued by the Defendant Company). Since then, the Plaintiff owned 4,00 shares issued by the Defendant Company (40%) at the same time as the employees working for the Defendant Company divided their shares into shares of the Defendant Company.

As of December 17, 2012, the Defendant Company’s register of shareholders held each of the Plaintiff and D 4,000 shares (40%) among the total number of shares issued on 10,00 shares (40%) and the Defendant C 1,100 shares (1%) and E 600 shares (6%) and F 300 shares (3%). As of June 25, 2013, the Defendant Company’s register of shareholders held 4,00 shares (40%), D 1,90 shares (19%), Defendant C 3,50 shares (35%) and E 600 shares (60%).

C. From the time of the establishment of the Defendant Company to May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff served as the representative director of the Defendant Company, and was dismissed on May 20, 2013. D continued to maintain the position of the representative director, and resigned on September 29, 2014, which was after the instant indictment.

(A) Accordingly, the Plaintiff withdrawn the part of the claim for dismissal against D among the instant lawsuit.

Defendant C worked as the head of the Defendant Company, and was appointed as the inside director of the Defendant Company on March 23, 2012, and on May 20, 2013, respectively as the representative director of the Defendant Company.

E. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant Company to dismiss D and Defendant C from office as representative director and director, and the general meeting of shareholders convened on January 9, 2014, but rejected.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s determination on the legitimacy of the part requesting the dismissal of the representative director is made against the Defendants.