Defendant:

A. Resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff from the representative director at the meeting of the board of directors held on February 11, 2019;

B. August 26, 2019

Basic Facts

On September 22, 2011, the Defendant is an agricultural partnership established under the Framework Act on Agriculture, Rural Community and Food Industry for the management of the agricultural concentration industry, distribution of the agricultural concentration industry, wholesale and retail business, etc., and the Plaintiff was elected as the Defendant’s representative director on September 22, 201, and completed the registration as the Defendant’s representative director.

On February 11, 2019, the Defendant held a board of directors and made a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s representative director (hereinafter “instant resolution”) and accordingly, made a resolution to hold the Defendant’s general meeting of shareholders and the general meeting of its members.

C On June 19, 2019, after the resolution of this case was adopted, C sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of contents to urge the Defendant to hold the general meeting of shareholders and the general meeting of the members. As to this, on June 26, 2019, the Plaintiff accepted the resolution of this case 1 and expressed its intent to cooperate with C in the general meeting of shareholders and the general meeting of members.

On August 26, 2019, the Defendant held a board of directors and passed a resolution to appoint C as the Defendant’s representative director (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

On November 13, 2019, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting and passed a resolution on each item of agenda indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “resolution 3”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10 through 17, the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the plaintiff's assertion 1 and 2 of this case was made by the board of directors of the board of directors, which is not a resolution of the board of directors under the jurisdiction of the defendant, with a defect exceeding the scope of authority. The resolution of this case No. 2 of this case is invalid in that the defendant's non-members are appointed as the defendant's representative director by violating the defendant

The resolution of this case No. 3 is effective because at least 2/3 of the defendant's members present and the affirmative votes of at least 2/3 of the members present do not meet the requirement.

The defendant's assertion 1, 2.2.