1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a major shareholder of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant newspaper company”), and the Defendant was a person who served as an internal director of the instant newspaper company from May 13, 2016 to July 5, 2017.

B. On January 9, 2017, the Suwon District Court rendered a final decision on the suspension of the Defendant’s performance of duties and the provisional disposition of the appointment of an acting director for the above newspaper company’s position as a director under the Sungwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch 2016Kahap107

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 11, 20

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion is not clearly organized, the Plaintiff’s assertion is required to arrange the Plaintiff’s complaint, each preparatory document, and all relevant evidence.

The Defendant worked in an unfaithful manner, such as not attending the work, and ② changed the password of the newspaper company of this case and interfered with the work by not informing the Plaintiff thereof. ③ The Plaintiff obtained loans of KRW 30,000,000 from the Chungcheong Credit Guarantee Foundation to the Plaintiff, and did not repay the loans. ④ The Plaintiff did not pay taxes of KRW 750,000,00,000 to the Plaintiff, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the damage.

B. Determination 1) First of all, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant faithfully performed his/her duties. Even if the Defendant faithfully performed his/her duties, such as failing to work properly, the Defendant’s failure to work, etc., is merely the newspaper company of this case, the Plaintiff, which is a shareholder, cannot be deemed to have suffered any loss, and there is no evidence to prove the damage incurred. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on interference with work is without merit. Accordingly, according to the statement of the evidence No. 4, according to the determination on interference with work, the Defendant changed the password of the newspaper company of this case on July 15, 2016, it is recognized that the Defendant changed the password of the newspaper company of this case.