1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiffs' arguments are the shareholders of the defendant company, and the defendant E and F are directors of the defendant company.

Defendant E and F, as a director of the Defendant Company, committed unlawful acts related to various duties and acts in violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation, and thereby proposed that the Plaintiffs be dismissed from the directors on January 22, 2019 as the subject matter of the general meeting of shareholders. However, Defendant E and F sought a judgment as stated in the purport of the claim, since Defendant E and F did not present the said agenda at an open general meeting of shareholders on March 25, 2019.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A. As to a lawsuit for removal of a director of a stock company, Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act provides, “If a general meeting of shareholders refuses to dismiss a director due to unlawful act in connection with his/her duties, or despite a serious violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation, a shareholder who holds no less than 3/10 of the total issued and outstanding shares may file a claim with the court for removal of the director within one month from the date when the general meeting of shareholders makes a resolution to dismiss the director.” Thus, the phrase “to reject the removal of

As to the instant case, the fact that the removal of Defendant E and F from office was not denied at the general meeting of the Defendant Company’s health team and the general meeting of shareholders does not conflict between the parties, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the ground that it does not meet the requirements under Article 3

B. As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted that, despite the exercise of the legitimate shareholder proposal right to dismiss Defendant E and F, the dismissal of Defendant E and F was not made because the board of directors of Defendant E and F did not unfairly submit it as an agenda item at the general meeting of shareholders. Therefore, the Plaintiffs asserted that the same should be applied to the case where the dismissal of the director was rejected

On the other hand, the defendant company's dismissal agenda of the directors, defendant E, and F proposed by the plaintiffs.