1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is shareholders who hold not less than 3/100 of the total shares of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Co., Ltd.") and Defendant D is a representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd.

Defendant D acquired a total of KRW 57,814,613 from Defendant Company, and committed an occupational breach of trust of Defendant Company’s total of KRW 672,120,910 (=648,000,000) (=648,120,910), and committed sexual indecent act against Defendant Company’s employees. As such, Defendant D should be dismissed from office of representative director of Defendant Company, on the ground that there was a serious violation of laws or regulations in relation to its duties.

The plaintiffs' judgment as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendants is ex officio, and the plaintiffs seek to dismiss defendant D from the representative director of the defendant company against the defendants as the representative director of the defendant company. This constitutes an action of formation aimed at forming a change of existing legal relations, and a lawsuit of formation may be brought only in cases where the law expressly prescribes.

(1) Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act provides that a director may file a request for dismissal of a director with a court, and does not provide that a director may file a request for dismissal of a representative director. Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act does not include Article 389(3) of the Commercial Act, which stipulates the provisions applicable mutatis mutandis to the representative director of a corporation, does not include Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act. Thus, the lawsuit filed against the Defendants by the Defendants constitutes an action of formation instituted without a legal provision, and thus, is unlawful.

Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act provides that the representative director shall be disqualified if he/she loses his/her qualification as a director because he/she is premised on the status of the director. Thus, even if the plaintiffs asserted that "the defendant D shall be dismissed from office of the defendant company," the representative director shall be dismissed.