1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The party status 1) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)

(A) The Plaintiff is a company that has completed the registration of dissolution on October 23, 2012, when engaged in propaganda advertising agency business, real estate rental business, etc. and completed the registration of dissolution on October 23, 2012, and Defendant B and C is currently the liquidator of the Defendant Company (Evidence A. 1.2). The Plaintiff is a shareholder who holds 20,088 shares of the total issued shares of the Defendant Company (Article 19.71%) out of 101,926 shares.

B. 1) Upon the expiration of the period of existence of the Defendant Company on January 17, 201, the Defendant Company’s liquidator was appointed on January 18, 201 as the representative liquidator, Defendant B, and C, respectively. However, on July 20, 2013, the shareholders of the Defendant Company dismissed E and F from the position of liquidator as the liquidator (i.e., E and F also retired from the position of the representative liquidator) at the temporary general shareholders meeting on July 20, 2013. Ultimately, only Defendant B and C2 were left the position of liquidator.

(B) No. 4(d)

1) The Defendant Company is currently the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Land and its ground D Building (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) After dissolution, the Defendant Company failed to resolve the issue of whether or not the previous executives and employees were retired and their scope, and the payment of retirement allowances, etc. to those employees of the Defendant Company. Some of the employees of the Defendant Company were issued a favorable judgment on April 18, 2014 by filing a claim for retirement allowances with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap53402, Jul. 26, 2013.

(B) No. 5) d.

On August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant Company to convene a general meeting of shareholders as a result of the following: (a) around August 29, 2013, the liquidator was responsible for the role of the shareholder as the representative of the shareholder; and (b) the liquidator did not proceed with the liquidation procedure; (c) the Defendant Company held a temporary general meeting of shareholders on September 5, 2013; (d) however, the Defendant Company was dismissed as a liquidator.

(B) No. 3, e.