1. At the request of an exchange change from the trial before remand, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are recorded in Appendix 1.

1. The judgment of the trial court prior to the progress of the lawsuit and the remanding of the case after the remanding the case, was affirmed by the withdrawal of the part on the counterclaim claim, which is the premise of the counterclaim among the plaintiff's main lawsuit, by citing only part of the part on which the defendant and the co-defendant of the first instance court seeks payment of USD 4,00 each month from the plaintiff's main lawsuit, and all of the remaining main claims were dismissed.

The judgment of the trial court prior to the remand only appealed to the part against which the plaintiff lost, and the Supreme Court reversed only the part of the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of membership right and remanded to the trial court, and all of the remaining appeals were dismissed.

Therefore, the scope of a trial after remanding the case is limited to the claim portion that “10% of the membership rights of the company listed in attached Table 1 between the plaintiff and the defendant is confirmed to be the plaintiff.”

2. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be found with Gap evidence of 1 to 26 and Eul evidence of 1 to 4 and 9 (including the number of branches; hereinafter the same shall apply) as a whole in the testimony of the witness G of the first instance court and the whole purport of the pleadings.

[1] The Plaintiff is a person who is operating the original exporter and importer company with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “themea D”) in the Guatemala.

The defendant is a stock company established on January 16, 2006 for the purpose of manufacturing and exporting and importing textile materials.

Co-defendants in the first instance trial are those who are in the position of director with the defendant's power of representation from May 24, 2006.

[2] At the time of establishment, the Defendant issued 10,000 shares of par value at KRW 5,00.

The co-defendant in the first instance court accepted the above 10,050 shares among the above 10,000 shares, 2,950 shares among the plaintiff's names, and 1,000 shares between K and L respectively, and on May 24, 2006, K and L transferred each 1,00 shares to the father of the co-defendant in the first instance trial.

On the other hand, the defendant opened a general meeting of shareholders on December 5, 2006.