1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons stated by the court in this part are as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications.

On June 24, 2012, the first instance court’s sentence 2, 205, “Plaintiffs, who were appointed as the Defendant’s director on June 24, 2012, was registered as a director with the Defendant’s power of representation on February 14, 2017,” and revised “Plaintiffs, who was appointed as the Defendant’s director on June 24, 2012, was reappointed on February 14, 2017, and registered as a director with the Defendant’s power of representation.”

The "this Court" of the first instance court shall be revised to "resident support in Daegu District Court", both of the three pages 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 3, 5 and 2.

The 3rd page of the first instance judgment and the 8th sentence were final and conclusive (Supreme Court Decision 2019Da212518) followed.

The 2nd sentence of the first instance judgment is amended to "2018Kahap3032" as "2019Kahap3032."

The judgment of the court of first instance, 5 pages 3 to 4, “A request for the revocation of a provisional disposition” was amended to read “A request for the revocation of a provisional disposition was filed (Tgu District Court resident stay support 2019Kahap3045), but the application for the revocation of the provisional disposition was withdrawn on December 2, 2019, which was subsequent to the judgment of the court of first instance (Seoul District Court resident stay support 2019Kahap3045).”

2. On April 13, 2019, the Plaintiff, as a director, dismissed the Plaintiff and C as a director, and appointed D and B as a successor director on April 13, 2019, sought confirmation as to the purport that the resolution by the board of directors of June 1, 2019, who appointed directors F as a director acting as a director with the representative authority, is null and void. The resolution by the board of directors of June 20, 2019, who appointed the director F as a director with the representative authority, was not held by a lawful convening authority, and thus, is not held by the legitimate convening authority.

As to this, the defendant appointed a new director in consideration of the fact that not only the term of office of the plaintiff as a director but also the term of office of other directors has expired on February 13, 2020.