1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff is a director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and a shareholder holding 19,200 shares (40,000 shares) of 19,200 shares, and the Defendant is a shareholder holding 19,60 shares of the instant company (49% of the total shares) and a director and a representative director.

The Defendant acquired the shares from the former representative director and the shareholder D of the instant company, but failed to pay the purchase price of the shares, and thereby caused a breach of trust in business by changing the patent right owned by the instant company under the name of the Defendant, and thereby resulting in an act of occupational breach of trust.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 385, Paragraph 2 of the Commercial Code, the defendant is dismissed from office of inside director and representative director.

Of the lawsuit of this case, the part demanding the dismissal of the defendant from the office of representative director of the company of this case among the lawsuit of this case is a form action aimed at forming an alteration of existing legal relations, and the lawsuit of formation is instituted only when the law expressly provides for the request for dismissal of directors. Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act provides for the request for dismissal of directors, and there is no separate provision for dismissal of the representative director.

In addition, the representative director is based on the premise that he/she is a director, so he/she can deprive him/her of his/her position through the lawsuit for dismissal of directors in cases of unjust act of the representative director's office.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful because there is no legal basis or there is no benefit of the lawsuit.

Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act of the part concerning the claim for dismissal of an internal director among the lawsuits of this case provides that “If a general meeting of shareholders refuses dismissal of a director, despite the existence of an unlawful act, or a serious violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation, such dismissal shall be made 3/100