1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and those resulting from the intervention in the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the part against the defendant, among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 to the judgment as to the defendant's new argument that the defendant added or added to the following.

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Co., Ltd.") used "the defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Co., Ltd.") as "the defendant Co., Ltd.")" and all "the defendant Co., Ltd." are incorporated as "the defendant".

Defendant C shall be used as “C” for the third 12 parallels in the judgment of the first instance, and all Defendant C shall be used as “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

Defendant E and H are used in the third 13th 13th tier of the judgment of the first instance as “Defendant E” (hereinafter “E”), and the joint Defendant E and the Intervenor H (hereinafter “Defendant E”) in the first 13th tier, respectively, and all of “Defendant E” were filled by both “E” and “Defendant H”, respectively.

5. The 8th of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

D. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the issuance of the Plaintiff’s new shares is filed on October 8, 2015, the Defendant held a board of directors and passed a resolution on the issuance of new shares with the issuance price of 10,000 shares per share, while attending C, E, an in-house director on the register, and D (Ga, a inside director on the register).

Accordingly, at the time of October 28, 2015, M 3,600 shares, N 3,200 shares, G 3,200 shares, which are shareholders on the defendant's list of shareholders, were acquired respectively, and the registration of capital increase was completed on November 5, 2015.

2. On July 10, 2013, the general meeting of shareholders held on July 10, 2013 by the defendant who was appointed as the intervenor and the defendant who was appointed as the inside director on August 10, 2017, and C as the defendant who was appointed as the inside director on July 4, 2013 as the defendant who was appointed as the inside director, was held on July 10, 201, that the plaintiff did not notify the plaintiff who was the real shareholder holding the shareholder's right and did not attend the meeting.