1. Of the instant lawsuits, the resolution of each of the instant temporary shareholders’ meetings as of June 28, 2017 and August 31, 2017 among the Plaintiff’s lawsuits, Plaintiff B’s lawsuits, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant (former trade name: I) is a company established for the purpose of real estate leasing business, and the defendant's shares are 228,500 common shares.

B. From April 4, 2014 to September 6, 2016, Plaintiff A served as the Defendant’s internal director and the representative director, and Plaintiff B, as the Plaintiff’s spouse, served as the Defendant’s internal director and the representative director from September 6, 2016 to November 10, 2016.

C. On September 28, 2016, the Defendant held a special general meeting of shareholders and resolved as of September 28, 2016 that appointed D, E, as directors of each company, and F as auditors. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant passed a resolution of November 10, 2016 that appointed F as directors, and G as auditors. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant held a special general meeting of shareholders and passed a resolution of June 28, 2017 that appointed H as directors. On August 31, 2017, the Defendant adopted a resolution of ratification on September 28, 2016 and November 10, 2016, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 10 through 12 (including evidence with a provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense of safety

A. On September 6, 2016, before each of the instant resolutions was adopted, Plaintiff A’s lawsuit is unlawful, since there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the absence of each of the instant resolutions due to the resignation of the Defendant’s inside director and representative director positions, etc.

B. We examine the Defendant’s main defense or ex officio as to whether the part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, Plaintiff B’s lawsuit, and Plaintiff B’s claim for confirmation of non-existence of each resolution on August 31, 2017, among the instant lawsuit, is legitimate.

1) First of all, whether Plaintiff A’s lawsuit is legitimate or not, as the defendant’s internal director and representative director, whether there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the absence of each of the instant resolutions as to whether Plaintiff A has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the absence of each of the instant resolutions.