1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for the election of representative director and inside director shall be dismissed.

2. The defendants are individually to the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a corporation with the objective of developing and implementing real estate, and Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a corporation with the objective of tourist hotel business.

On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was appointed respectively as the representative director and in-house director of the Defendants, and the registration accordingly was completed.

On the other hand, D was appointed as an internal director of Defendant B on July 31, 2015, and E was appointed as an internal director of the Defendant hotel on January 31, 2017, and the registration accordingly was completed, and there was no other director than the Defendants’ legal entity, weather, etc.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's assertion of the whole purport of pleading as to the purport of pleading, the plaintiff has withdrawn from the representative director and internal director of the defendants, but the defendants did not register this purport.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks to hold a board of directors to elect the representative director and internal directors, and to implement the registration procedure for change to the purport that the plaintiff resigns from the representative director and internal director of the defendants.

In the lawsuit of this case, the health care provider, ex officio of the part concerning the request for the election of the representative director and in-house director, there is no legal basis to seek the plaintiff to elect a new representative director and in-house director by holding a board of directors with the defendants, and Article 382(1) of the Commercial Act provides that directors shall be appointed at a general meeting of shareholders, and even if the defendants hold a board of directors, a new in-house director may not be appointed. The plaintiff can achieve the purpose of the lawsuit of this case if the defendants implement the procedures for the registration of the resignation of the representative director and in-house director with the reason for resignation. Thus, the part

Article 383 of the Commercial Act shall be three or more directors of a stock company, and the total amount of capital.