1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant shall bear the costs of the intervention in the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 4, 2013, the Defendant’s board of directors adopted a resolution to appoint the president, the Plaintiff C, the vice president, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant as an auditor.

B. After that, there was a controversy over the audit or reprimand of the former executive organ inside the Defendant, and B expressed its intention to resign from the Defendant Chairman around November 5, 2013.

C. On November 27, 2013, the Defendant’s board of directors dismissed the Defendant’s Intervenor from the audit and inspection; the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor was resolved to appoint the Plaintiff C as the auditor, the chairperson E, vice-chairperson, and Plaintiff F.

On December 10, 2013, the Intervenor brought a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of invalidation by the resolution of the board of directors made on November 27, 2013, as the Jeonju District Court 2013Gahap711 case.

E. On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff C notified the emergency board of directors (the vice-chairperson was notified). Accordingly, the board of directors was held on January 7, 2014.

F. On January 13, 2014, Plaintiff C submitted a written withdrawal from office to the effect that “the resignation from the Defendant’s director is made” and on January 14, 2014, Plaintiff C withdraws from office at the Defendant’s meeting on the responsibility of the litigation described in paragraph (d).”

E and Plaintiff F also resigned from office as vice-chairpersons and auditors on January 14, 2014.

G. On January 16, 2014, a notice of convening an emergency board and special meeting was sent to the Defendant adviser, auditor, and 23 directors in the name of the Chairperson B, stating that “an emergency board of directors and special meeting shall be held on January 22, 2014,” respectively.

H. On January 22, 2014, at the meeting of the Defendant adviser, auditor, and 12 of the directors, the Defendant extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant extraordinary meeting”) was held under the condition that seven of the seven persons were present and delegated voting rights to the Speaker.

G was the chairman of the instant special meeting, and the decision to appoint the Intervenor joining the Defendant as the chairperson at the special meeting is the same as the resolution of the instant case.

A. A.

I. The Intervenor joining the Defendant on March 4, 2014

The claim in this subsection was withdrawn.

(j)..