1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

ex officio, the instant lawsuit is lawful.

First, with respect to a claim for dismissal of a representative director, a lawsuit seeking dismissal of a representative director constitutes a lawsuit for formation of change of legal relation and a lawsuit for formation of a legal relation is permitted only where there are explicit provisions in law. Thus, Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act only provides for a claim for dismissal of a director, and does not provide for a legal provision that a claim for dismissal of a representative director may be filed by lawsuit. Thus, this part

Next, in order to file a lawsuit to dismiss a director of a company in violation of the laws, regulations or articles of incorporation in relation to a claim for removal of a director, a director of the company must first request the board of directors to convene a general meeting for removal of a director (Article 385(1) of the Commercial Act). If a general meeting of shareholders refuses to dismiss a director, a shareholder who holds shares equivalent to at least 3/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares may file a lawsuit with the court seeking removal of a director within one month from the date of resolution of the general meeting of shareholders (Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act). In light of the above provisions of the Commercial Act, a resolution to dismiss a director at a general meeting of shareholders is

However, in the case of this case, the plaintiff also recognized that the general meeting of shareholders to dismiss the defendant in C is not convened. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements under Article 385 (2) of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss all of them. It is so decided as per Disposition.