1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Company is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing the freezing machinery.

B. Details of the change in shares of the Defendant Company are as follows.

No. 15,000 capital increase on December 15, 2018; 20,000 capital increase on December 15, 2018; 20,000 20,000 32,000 as of May 15, 2018; 32,000 9,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 3 F 1,800 3 F 1,800 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 ,50 1,500 1,500 1,500 ,500 Ha,500 Ha,500 Ha,500 1,507 1,050 10,509,010

C. D was reappointed as an internal director and a representative director on March 31, 2015, and on March 31, 2018, at a temporary general meeting of shareholders, the Defendant Company retired from the representative director, and passed a resolution of being reappointed as an internal director with the representative authority of the Defendant Company.

(hereinafter “instant resolution”). D.

Plaintiff

B, on March 14, 2018, purchased 12,000 shares issued by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant shares”) from theO in KRW 270,000,000, and the Plaintiff B refused the transfer of ownership against the Defendant Company on or around March 27, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs 1) are 15,00 shares of the defendant company (30%) and 12,00 shares of the defendant company (24%) and O are 12,00 shares of the defendant company (24%) and the plaintiff Eul purchased shares of O on March 14, 2018. At the time of the resolution of the defendant company, the defendant company did not issue a notice of convening the shareholders' meeting to the plaintiffs who are shareholders at the time of the resolution of the defendant company. Thus, the resolution of the case in this case must be revoked due to procedural defects that did not go through the notice of convening the shareholders. 2) The shares of the defendant company in this case were owned D because D terminated the shares or title trust which were held in trust with O, and they are owned by O and O.