1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

The defendant is a company engaged in the manufacturing and selling business of Seodaemun-gu products. The plaintiff was employed as a director from March 31, 2005 to the defendant's inside director from March 31, 2020 and retired on March 31, 2020, and is currently the defendant's shareholder.

The minutes of the Defendant’s ordinary shareholders’ meeting on March 31, 2017 are written as follows: (a) the resolution of the general shareholders’ meeting at issue was made again in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “resolution of the general shareholders’ meeting at issue”).

On April 17, 2018, the Defendant held a board of directors on April 17, 2018 and passed a resolution of the board of directors in attached Form 2 again (hereinafter “resolution of the board of directors”).

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 18, and the defendant's lawsuit seeking a resolution of the shareholders' general meeting of this case and the absence or invalidation of the resolution of the board of directors' meeting of this case as to the defense prior to the whole purport of the pleading is an incidental law because there is no legal interest

Judgment

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation must be immediately removed because there is apprehension or risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, and it is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or risk (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19054 Decided May 17, 2007). In addition to the whole purport of pleading No. 16-18 on the evidence No. 16-30, the Defendant’s regular general meeting of shareholders held on March 30, 2020, the fact that a director C, D was appointed, and the Defendant’s meeting of the board of directors held on March 30, 2020 is recognized to have been appointed as a representative director. Thus, seeking confirmation of absence of recommendation for appointment of the representative director in the resolution of the instant general meeting of shareholders and seeking confirmation of invalidity of appointment of the representative director in the resolution of the instant board of directors does not constitute a benefit of rights protection as a lawsuit seeking confirmation of past legal relationship or legal relationship.

B. As to the remaining parts of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders and the board of directors, the absence or invalidity of the resolution is confirmed.