1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a stock company operating passenger transport ticket business, and the plaintiff was registered as a defendant's joint representative director with C as the defendant's internal director.

B. On March 7, 2012, the Defendant held a board of directors and passed a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff from a joint representative director (hereinafter “instant resolution”), and registered this on June 22, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, and Gap evidence 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, while holding the board of directors on March 7, 2012, did not notify or explain the Plaintiff at least one week prior to the date of the meeting, and did not notify or explain to the Plaintiff on the agenda on which the Plaintiff is dismissed from the joint representative director. The Plaintiff presented the instant agenda in the presence of the Plaintiff, and did not give the opportunity to explain to the Plaintiff, and there was no reason to dismiss the Plaintiff from the joint representative director. Thus, the instant resolution sought confirmation of the invalidity of the instant resolution by asserting that the serious defects are null and void.

On November 6, 2013, after the resolution of this case, the defendant, at the meeting of the board of directors, five directors of the defendant including the plaintiff, who attended all of the defendant's directors. Thus, the plaintiff's right to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case has no interest in confirmation because it fails to meet the requirements for protection of rights.

Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 1-1-7, and Eul evidence 1-1-7, the defendant's articles of incorporation provides that "the method of resolution by the board of directors shall be the attendance of a majority of the directors and the majority of the present directors", and the defendant held the board of directors on November 6, 2013 after the resolution of this case. The defendant's five directors including the plaintiff are all present, and the above board of directors shall be the plaintiff.