1. It is confirmed that an underwriting contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 8, 2016 between the content of the attached business is null and void.

2...

1. The term “contract to underwrite the contents of business (hereinafter “instant underwriting agreement”) concluded on August 8, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant indicating the claim and the Defendant transfers the Plaintiff’s business rights. As such, in order to conclude the instant underwriting agreement, the Plaintiff’s special resolution is required pursuant to Articles 374 and 434 of the Commercial Act.

However, since the former representative C entered into the instant underwriting contract with the defendant without a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, the instant underwriting contract is null and void.

D Co., Ltd. entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the ground of the instant underwriting agreement, and the Plaintiff voluntarily succeeded to the Defendant’s claim for the refund of KRW 370,000,000, which was paid to D Co., Ltd., and is filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for rent.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the instant underwriting agreement.

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).