1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, with the exception of adding “a judgment on the assertion that the implementation agreement of the management normalization plan of this case is null and void” to “a judgment on the assertion that the implementation agreement of the management normalization plan of this case is null and void” as stated in the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

【Supplementary part】

1) As to the assertion that the implementation agreement of the management normalization plan of this case is null and void, the main point of the argument is whether the implementation agreement of the management normalization plan of this case lacks the requirements for the establishment of the implementation agreement of the management normalization plan of this case is that the implementation agreement of the management normalization plan of this case includes contents of

The performance agreement is null and void since it was concluded with the exclusion of the plaintiff who is a D major shareholder.

B) The former Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8572, Aug. 3, 2007; amended by Act No. 9671, Apr. 1, 2009; and invalidated on December 31, 2010; hereinafter “former Corporate Restructuring Promotion Act”).

Article 10(1) of the Act provides that the Council shall enter into an agreement with the "enterprise showing signs of insolvency to implement the management normalization plan". In other words, major shareholders with insolvency signs do not designate as the other party to the agreement to implement the management normalization plan, but protect the interests of shareholders by means of obtaining consent on matters necessary for the consent of shareholders. Therefore, even if the Council did not enter into the agreement with D major shareholders, the agreement to implement the management normalization plan of this case cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for the establishment of the agreement. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. (2) The consent agreement provided for in Article 10(2)4 of the Act on Promotion of Management normalization should be consented to the specific management normalization plan.