1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The summary of the defense of Defendant C’s main defense is an oligopolistic shareholder who holds 75% shares, and is in the position to dismiss the Plaintiff holding 25% shares by a legitimate method through a general meeting of shareholders. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff abused a lawsuit without interest for the purpose of taking over management rights and thus there is no interest in the lawsuit in the lawsuit in this case. Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act provides that “If the dismissal of the Plaintiff was rejected by the general meeting of shareholders despite the fact that the director committed an unlawful act in connection with his duties, or a serious violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation, a shareholder who holds shares equivalent to not less than 3/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares may claim the dismissal of the director to the court within one month from the date when the general meeting of shareholders passes

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case based on the claim to dismiss the director of the minority shareholder as above, and it cannot be deemed that there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case merely because the defendant C asserts.

The main defense of Defendant C is without merit.

B. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit ex officio.

Inasmuch as a claim for removal of a director by minority shareholders under Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act is aimed at resolving the delegation relationship existing between the company and the director before the expiration of the term of office, in cases where the relevant director resigns or retires to the expiration of the term of office while the lawsuit for removal of a director is pending, there is no benefit of lawsuit to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da5926, Apr. 12, 1996; 95Na4323, Dec. 14, 1995). At the time of filing the instant lawsuit, Defendant C was an internal director and representative director of Defendant C Company B. On December 27, 2018, D was appointed as an internal director and representative director, and Defendant C had already been appointed as of December 27, 2018.