1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The resignation of a director of a juristic person to decide on a claim for confirmation of invalidation of resignation shall be deemed to be a single act with which the other party exists. Thus, in principle, the expression of intention shall be effective at the time when the other party reaches the other party, and shall not be withdrawn in mind after the declaration of intention becomes effective. However, in special circumstances where the resignation intention cannot be deemed immediate, such as where the submission of a letter of intention is omitted as an immediate withdrawal recommendation, the submission of a letter of intention is made to the representative, or where the date on which the letter of resignation was prepared is entered after the date on which the letter of intention was submitted, or where the date on which the letter of intention

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10909 Decided June 15, 2006). According to the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3, and 4, the plaintiff submitted a letter of resignation containing a statement that he/she would resign from the office of the defendant's Secretary-General on February 22, 2014 while serving as the defendant's Secretary-General on February 23, 2014. Accordingly, the defendant's corporate registry was registered that the plaintiff resigned from the office of the defendant as of June 23, 2014, and the defendant's Secretary-General can recognize facts constituting a director.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the resignation of the plaintiff reaches the defendant's representative, and the plaintiff seems to have resigned from the defendant's office.

On the other hand, the plaintiff submitted a letter of resignation to receive the letter of resignation, and C immediately returned it, and D et al. claims that the resignation of the plaintiff is null and void since D et al. illegally used the plaintiff's letter

As shown in the plaintiff's assertion, Gap evidence Nos. 4 is viewed as follows, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings: