1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, and 15 (including the number when it is not indicated specially; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading, and there is no counter-proof.

Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is a company established on December 27, 2002 for the purpose of the surface treatment device manufacturing business, steel product construction business, etc.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder who holds 40,500 shares (28.92%) out of 140,000 shares issued by Defendant Company.

around 2007, the representative director of the defendant company was M, and the auditor was N.

B. I applied for an auction of real estate rent with respect to the remaining-gu F factory site, the only real estate of Defendant Company, and on March 21, 2007, the decision to commence auction (Tgu District CourtO) was made, and the auction procedure on the said real estate was in progress.

C. On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a permit from the court to convene a general meeting of shareholders (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Order 2008Du1, Jan. 31, 2008), and convened a general meeting of shareholders of the Defendant Company. The above general meeting of shareholders was appointed as a director of each Defendant Company by Defendant B, C, and P, and the board of directors appointed B as the representative director and completed registration of appointment of the above director and the representative director on February 29, 2008.

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant Company was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act (Dissolution of Dormant Company) on December 2, 2013 because it did not report that “the Defendant Company did not discontinue its business” more than five years after the last registration.

As a result, the registration of appointment was completed as the liquidator and the representative liquidator of the defendant company on the same day, and the defendant C as the liquidator.

(Director P had already died on May 12, 201). 2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by Defendant B is a shareholder who holds no less than 3/100 of the shares of the Defendant Company and holds no less than 3/100 of the shares, pursuant to Article 395(2) of the Commercial Act.