1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff is an entertainment business, artist, sports player, and other authorized management business. (2) Defendant B served as the Plaintiff’s representative director from April 31, 2014 to July 15, 2016, and Defendant C owned 8.94% of the total number of the Plaintiff’s outstanding shares until May 12, 2016. Defendant D, E, and H were affiliated entrepreneurs who entered into an exclusive contract with the Plaintiff as listed below (hereinafter “instant exclusive contract”).

D E H

B. On March 28, 2016, Defendant C entered into a contract for acquisition of shares and right of management (hereinafter “instant acquisition agreement”) with Defendant C, with the Plaintiff Company I (hereinafter “I”) to transfer the Plaintiff’s shares of KRW 1515,774 (Share 8.94%) and the Plaintiff’s right of management to KRW 17 billion (hereinafter “instant acquisition agreement”).

On May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff made a public announcement to change the largest shareholder from Defendant C to I, and on the same day, changed the trade name from “J” to “A”.

C. Around February 22, 2016, Defendant D, E, and H’s change of the Plaintiff’s representative director, Defendant D, E, and H agreed on the instant exclusive agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant D, E, and H.

Since May 27, 2016 to June 10, 2016, Defendant D, E, and H concluded a new exclusive agreement with L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) established on May 20, 2016, which had been employed as the Plaintiff’s representative of the management of entertainment, changed the trade name on June 1, 2016 to “J”; hereinafter “J”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is Defendant C’s actual manager, and Defendant B, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, had a duty to manage and supervise the Plaintiff’s business according to the duty of due care as a good manager.

Nevertheless, it is not possible.