1. Of the instant lawsuits, part of the claim for confirmation that T/U is not in the defendant’s joint representative (chairperson).

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for confirmation that T and U is not in the defendant's joint representative (chairperson) is sought to confirm that T and U are not in the defendant's joint representative (chairperson) and at the same time, T and U are not in the defendant's joint representative (chairperson) when seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the resolution on August 31, 2013 by the defendant who enacted the defendant's articles of incorporation. We examine ex officio the existence of interest in confirmation.

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is in dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and therefore, it is recognized in cases where the confirmation judgment is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension or danger when there is apprehension or risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff can obtain confirmation against the Defendant by seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution made on August 31, 2013 by seeking confirmation against the Defendant on the invalidation of the resolution made on August 31, 2013, U is the most effective and appropriate means to seek confirmation that the Defendant’s joint representative is not the Defendant’s joint representative (chairperson).

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation that T/U among the lawsuits of this case is not in the defendant's joint representative (chairperson) is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Of the instant lawsuit, a non- pleadings on the claim for confirmation of invalidation of the Defendant’s resolution (Articles 208(3)1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act)