1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the principal lawsuit, since the defendant appealed only to the part concerning the principal lawsuit among the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, citing a judgment of the court of first instance, shall be quoted on the grounds of this judgment;

However, the decision of this court on the defendant's argument is added as follows.

3. Additional determination

A. On October 4, 2012, the Defendant’s assertion that C had no authority to convene an extraordinary general meeting by the Defendant, and even if N andO, at the time, did not attend the above extraordinary meeting and the resolution of appointment of directors, the Plaintiff was registered as a director of the Defendant’s corporate registry by unlawful means, such as preparing a false minutes of the extraordinary general meeting, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any standing to file the instant lawsuit with the Plaintiff, and thereby there is no other legal issue of civil or criminal punishment. Therefore, the instant lawsuit does not have a benefit of confirmation.

B. First of all, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no standing to be a party, the Health Team and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone prepared the minutes of the extraordinary general meeting as of October 4, 2012 by falsity.

It is difficult to view that a resolution to appoint the plaintiff as a director on the same day is null and void, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Next, as to the defendant's assertion that there is no interest in confirmation, it is difficult to recognize the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was registered as a director in the transcript of the defendant's corporate registry by unlawful means, as seen earlier, so long as the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was dismissed on October 4, 2012 by a resolution at an extraordinary general meeting of April 30, 2013, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit of this case is disputed the status as a director of the defendant corporation.