1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts constituting the premise of the dispute;

A. The Defendant is an incorporated foundation established for the purpose of creating a park cemetery, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s director on June 4, 2010.

B. On June 7, 2010, the Defendant’s board of directors on June 7, 2010 resolved to appoint C, D, L, and F as a director (hereinafter “instant first resolution”).

C. On May 10, 2013, the Defendant’s board of directors on May 10, 2013 resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff from the board of directors (hereinafter “the second resolution”).

After that, on June 21, 2013, the Defendant’s board of directors, on June 21, 2013, resolved to dismiss the president G and appoint H as the president, I, J, H, and K as each director (hereinafter “third resolution of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 37-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the main defense against the claim for confirmation of the absence of the first and third resolutions of this case

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of the absence of the first and third resolutions of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

B. (1) Determination (1) In order to seek confirmation of invalidity of a resolution for the appointment of director against a director who had been appointed by a resolution of the board of directors on the part of the first resolution of this case but has already been dismissed or resigned from office, it would result in seeking confirmation of the past legal relations or legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da37206, Dec. 10, 196). In full view of the entries in evidence No. 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the fact that C, E,F, and D, who had been appointed as a director by the first resolution of this case, was registered as a director on June 10, 2010 and was registered as a director on June 24, 2013 can be acknowledged that the registration of resignation was completed on June 24, 2013.

Therefore, the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the first resolution of this case is unlawful because it seeks confirmation of past legal relations, and there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(2) The lawsuit seeking confirmation of the third resolution of the instant case does not necessarily have a legal relationship between the parties.