1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an incorporated foundation established on March 26, 2012 for the purpose of maintaining and managing inspections and finances in B’s name.

B. According to the current defendant's articles of incorporation, the term of office of the defendant director is three years.

In addition, according to the corporate register of the defendant, the plaintiff was appointed as the defendant director on November 27, 2015, and the term of office expired on November 27, 2018, and the registration of the expiration of the term was completed on July 9, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant did not follow the procedures, etc. under the articles of incorporation on December 12, 2018, and unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the dismissal of the director. Thus, the Plaintiff is still deemed a lawful director of the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff’s term of office expired on November 27, 2018.

Even if a successor director is not legally selected and appointed, the plaintiff is able to perform the duties of the former defendant director, so it is intended to seek confirmation of the status of the defendant director.

3. Determination

(a) Cases where it is necessary to recognize the right to conduct business until the directors whose status of the corporation has expired have been appointed;

Even if a director's right to perform his/her duties at the expiration of his/her term of office is not a position to be comprehensively granted solely on the ground that it is a retired director's right to perform his/her duties individually and specifically, in order to solve urgent circumstances, it is not a position to be recognized as a director.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da37206 delivered on December 10, 1996). B.

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s term of office expires on November 27, 2018. Therefore, regardless of whether the Plaintiff is able to perform its duties as a director until a successor director is appointed, it is clear that the Plaintiff is not in the Defendant’s position as a director.

Therefore, it is true.