1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The relationship between the parties

A. Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a company established and operated for the purpose of passenger transportation business, automobile repair business, sales of automobile accessories, and business related to the installation and operation of natural gas charging stations. Plaintiff A is a shareholder of 42.8% of the total issued stocks of D, in-house director, Plaintiff B is a shareholder of 0.43% of the total issued stocks of D, and in-house director, the Defendant is a shareholder of 8.23% of the total issued stocks of D and the representative director, and Nonparty E is a shareholder of 27.97% of the total issued stocks of D and the inside director.

B. E and Plaintiff A are siblings, and Plaintiff B is Plaintiff A’s son, and the Defendant is E’s son.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion, as the representative director, has committed illegal acts such as violation of the duty to hold concurrent offices, violation of the duty of prohibition of self-transaction, former representative act, and illegal disposal of treasury stocks as follows, and in the future, it is highly likely that such illegal acts will be repeated to inflict damage on D. Thus, the defendant's act of disposing of all assets, including D's treasury stocks, and the act of borrowing or concluding a guarantee contract under the name of D should be prohibited.

1) The Defendant, who is the representative director of D, is Nonparty F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) with the same business purpose as D without the separate board of directors approval.

(G) G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”).

2) As to the Plaintiff, H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”)

(i) Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter “I”);

J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”)

) K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”)

The defendant violated the duty to hold concurrent offices under Article 397 of the Commercial Act by holding office as the representative director or currently holding office.2) At the same time, the defendant is the representative director of D, while holding office as the representative director of G, H and F, the board of directors is approved.