1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the first instance judgment, i.e., "afford" of the first instance judgment, i.e., "afford" of the second instance judgment, and i.e., "afford" of the second instance judgment, and ii) the Plaintiff emphasizes the Plaintiff as the ground for appeal under the second instance judgment, except for adding a judgment on the grounds for appeal under the second instance judgment, and thus,

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. First, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s representative director could not request the Plaintiff to peruse and copy within the said period as he/she had been staying in a foreign country within the performance period stipulated in the instant indirect compulsory performance decision.

According to the fact-finding results by the Seoul Southern Immigration Office, it is recognized that the representative director of the plaintiff was staying abroad during the period of the above duty performance.

However, in light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including branch numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, each of the testimony of witness witness D of the court of first instance, the defendant did not contact the plaintiff within the above period or request the plaintiff to perform his/her duties by visiting the plaintiff's head office or branch office within the above period, and the plaintiff company, other than the representative director of the plaintiff, may conduct the inspection and copy of the documents of this case on Jan. 19, 2016, the defendant requested the plaintiff to inspect and copy the documents of this case on Jan. 27, 2016, when considering that the defendant requested the plaintiff to inspect and copy the documents of this case at the plaintiff's branch office of the plaintiff on Jan. 27, 2016, it cannot be deemed that the defendant could not request the plaintiff to inspect and copy the documents of this case during the period of performing his/her duties

B. Next, Articles 396, 448, and 466(1) of the Commercial Act, which provide the basis for the claim for perusal and copy of account books, etc.