1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a shareholder holding 40,500 shares issued by the Defendant Company, among 140,000 shares, and Defendant B was a representative director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant C was a former director of the Defendant Company.

B. On December 2, 2013, Defendant Company was ordered to be dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act. On the same day, Defendant B was appointed as liquidator and representative liquidator, and Defendant C was appointed as liquidator.

[Reasons for Recognition]: The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s main defense

A. Defendant B is not the representative liquidator of the Defendant Company, but the representative director of the Defendant Company is deemed a representative liquidator pursuant to Article 531(1) of the Commercial Act. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot immediately file the instant lawsuit immediately, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful and asserted as unlawful.

However, according to Article 539(2) of the Commercial Act, if a liquidator is clearly unfit for performing his/her duties or has breached his/her material duties, any shareholder who holds no less than 3/100 of the total issued and outstanding shares may request a court to dismiss such liquidator. In this case, a person who is appointed as a liquidator, or a person who is deemed a representative liquidator pursuant to Article 531(1) of the Commercial Act, regardless of whether he/she

As examined below, as the plaintiff claims in this case pursuant to Article 539(2) of the Commercial Act, the above defense by the defendant B is without merit.

B. In addition, Defendant B filed the instant lawsuit against only Defendant B and C, even though the instant lawsuit was an essential co-litigation, which is an essential co-litigation between the liquidator and the company as a co-defendant, and thus, the instant lawsuit is deemed unlawful. However, on February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application to add the Defendant Company as an essential co-litigants, and on March 2, 2016, the fact that this court rendered a decision to permit the instant lawsuit is significant in this court, and thus, this part of this part of this case’s principal safety