1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company established on December 14, 1987 for the purpose of route passenger transport business, and 55 shareholders own a total of 72,00 shares of 5,00 shares as shown in the attached Table 2 list of shareholders (hereinafter referred to as the "attached Table"), and the plaintiffs hold 23,26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 48, 48, 50 shares of 5,00 shares of 5,00 shares.

The proxy AI (State) executive organ shall delegate its own shares with respect to the following conditions:

1.The executive organ shall be responsible for all obligations and shall operate the Company.

2. To delegate the whole of stock authority to the execution department;

(Provided, however, the period is until the completion of the project is realized and the business is normal). 3. When the enforcement department makes it difficult to manage any longer even if it does not do its best, it shall dispose of the already delegated stocks at will and settle accounts for the repayment of liabilities such as financial rights and obligations, and shall not raise a civil or criminal objection.

B. Attached Table 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 through 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 39 through 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, and 54 of the attached Table 2, 4, 55, 6, 8 through 13, 15, 17, 19 through 22, 24, 27, 29, 35 of the shareholders listed in 33, 39 through 43, 45, 47, 4

C. On March 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) held a regular general meeting of shareholders on March 14, 2013, and decided to resolve on the matter of election due to the expiration of the term of office of directors and auditors; (b) on the same day, the Defendant notified 17 shareholders as indicated in attached Table 7, 14, 18, 26, 28, 20, 30, 34 through 38, 44, 46, 49, 51, and 53, among the Defendant’s shareholders, via registered mail.

On March 29, 2013, the Defendant held a regular general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter referred to as “instant general meeting”) and 32 persons as stated in the table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 through 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28 through 33, 36, 38, 40, 44, 45, 47, and 54 of the instant general meeting were present.

In this case.