The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s assertion does not constitute a serious defect to the extent of invalidation or non-existence in the resolution of the temporary general meeting of shareholders on October 22, 2018, and, even if a director with the power of representation was registered at the time of the registration of dissolution of the Defendant, insofar as N was legally appointed according to the above resolution of the temporary general meeting of shareholders, the lower court held that the Plaintiff

Furthermore, the lower court lack of evidence to prove that I had effectively acquired the claim of the instant amount of transfer, and even if so, the said assignment of claim is valid.

Even if the Plaintiff had already completed the extinctive prescription at the time of acquisition of the above claim, it rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the period of extinctive prescription has been ten years since the Defendant had already approved the Defendant’s obligation, or the claim for construction price of this case was changed

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the liquidator

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.