1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company aimed at publishing and selling newspapers, and the Plaintiff was a representative director from September 20, 200 to April 26, 2016, and the Defendant’s director from May 14, 2016.

B. In August 2015, the Defendant held 234,183 shares, 57.52% of the total 407,144 shares issued by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

C. On August 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and appealed the Defendant’s criminal facts of occupational breach of trust and occupational embezzlement, and was under confinement in the Seoul detention center. On August 27, 2015, the Defendant’s representative director E meeting the Plaintiff at the Seoul detention center, and notified the Plaintiff of the agenda of the board of directors on August 28, 2015 (hereinafter “D”).

On August 28, 2015, at the board of directors held on August 28, 2015 (hereinafter “Board of Directors of this case”), the Defendant decided to sell to D the shares of this case 30,611 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) which are 407,144 shares issued by the Defendant and 7.52% of the shares issued by C (hereinafter “instant shares”) (hereinafter “the resolution of the board of directors of this case”), and sold the instant shares to D on August 31, 2015.

E. On September 2015, C acquired 25,00 shares of the Defendant from F Co., Ltd. (former trade name: G Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “G”) (hereinafter “instant shares”).

F. Meanwhile, Article 45(4) of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation, which was in force on August 2015, stipulated that “in convening a board of directors, notice of each director and auditor must be given at least two days prior to the date set for the meeting.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7 through 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The resolution of the board of directors of this case did not have a notice of convening the board of directors against the plaintiff who is the defendant's director or one day prior to