The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

A. 1) The Defendant is a stock company established for the purpose of housing construction project, housing site preparation project, etc. on January 3, 2012. The Defendant’s shareholder is the Plaintiff, D, E, and F4, and the said shareholders hold 25% of the Defendant’s shares (total 85,00 shares) (total 85,00 shares), respectively. 2) The Plaintiff was the Defendant’s internal director, and the registration of dismissal was completed on October 20, 2015.

B. Resolution 1 on October 16, 2015 of the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders held by the Defendant representative director D, in-house directors E, and auditor F is the president office of the H third-story G and the K in-class K in Busan on September 30, 2015 (hereinafter “the place of this case”).

(2) On October 2, 2015, the minutes of the board of directors were prepared on October 16, 2015, on which a resolution was made to hold a temporary general meeting for the purpose of dismissing and appointing inside directors. (2) The Defendant representative director D sent a notice of convening a temporary general meeting of shareholders to the Plaintiff on October 2, 2015.

3) At a temporary general meeting of shareholders held on October 16, 2015, all the shareholders other than the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff, attended and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff from the inside director and appoint C as an inside director (hereinafter “the resolution of the instant general meeting of shareholders”).

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply).

The resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of this case was not a resolution of the board of directors for the convocation of the resolution, and there was a defect in the convocation of the convocation of the meeting, such as Jeju City, the head office of the company, and the meeting of Busan City, which is not an adjacent place. Therefore, the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of this case should be revoked.

Judgment on this Safety Defense

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion asserts that, since the Defendant again held a general meeting of shareholders on March 23, 2016 after the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of this case and passed a resolution for ratification of the resolution, the Plaintiff has no interest in filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of this case.