The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is the defendant's internal director and the person who was a shareholder (the plaintiff retired from the internal director on March 22, 2015, which was after the filing of the lawsuit in this case), and the defendant is a stock company that runs a market business for public interest purposes.

The Defendant’s shareholder registry of April 5, 201 states that the Plaintiff’s 1,750 shares (35%) among the total outstanding shares 5,00 shares, E, 1,00 shares (20%), F,750 shares (15%), C, 640 shares (12.8%), G, 50 shares (10%), and H, among total shares 5,000 shares, hold 360 shares (7.2%).

(Evidence A No. 1). C applied for permission to convene a temporary general meeting of shareholders by the Seoul Central District Court 2014 non-conforming84, and was decided on July 7, 2014 by the above court to grant permission to convene a temporary general meeting of shareholders, the purpose of which is to appoint new directors.

(A) On August 14, 2014, at the Defendant’s temporary general meeting of shareholders (E, C, G, and H), four shareholders (E, G, and H) holding 2,500 shares were appointed as the Speaker pro tempore and made a resolution to appoint C, C, and D as a director with the consent of all shareholders present at the meeting (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

On August 26, 2014, the registration of the appointment of directors for C and D was completed according to the above resolution in the corporate register of the defendant.

(A) With respect to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution by asserting that the Plaintiff and F (35% of Plaintiff’s shares, FF shares, 15% of F shares, etc.) at the time of the resolution of this case, at the time of the resolution of this case, the Plaintiff and F (15% of Plaintiff’s shares, 35% of Plaintiff’s shares, and F shares) did not meet the requirement of consent of the majority of the voting rights of the shareholders present at the meeting of this case, the Defendant, on the ground that there was no dispute as to the facts that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 10, 10, and Nos. 111, 10, and 11 were resigned from the position of director by the resolution of this case, and that the judgment of this case was completed due to the fact that J and D’s appointment of directors by holding a new