1. Revocation of the first instance judgment and all of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is that the court’s reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the part of “basic facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

In three pages, one to two parallels shall be followed as follows:

Defendant Company filed a lawsuit against F on February 24, 2016 against F for the claim for construction price, and is currently pending in the appellate trial.

(Dasan High Court 2017Na54855). 4. 14. 14.

Article 30 (Term of Office of Directors and Auditors) The term of office of directors shall be three years after their inauguration.

However, when the term of office of a director ends before the closing of a regular shareholders' meeting for the last period for the settlement of accounts during the term, the term shall be extended until the closing of the general meeting.

The term of office of the auditor shall be until the closing of a regular general meeting of shareholders with respect to the last period for settlement of accounts within three years.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Defendant C and D’s assertion by the Defendants are unlawful since their term of office expires and they currently are not in the position of director or auditor of the Defendant Company. Thus, the instant lawsuit seeking their dismissal is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

B. Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act provides that if a director refuses to dismiss him/her at a general meeting of shareholders even though he/she commits an unlawful act in connection with his/her duties, or violates any statute or the articles of incorporation, a shareholder who holds no less than 3/100 of the total issued and outstanding shares may request the court to dismiss the director within one month from the date when the general meeting passes a resolution. The above provision shall also apply mutatis mutandis to auditors pursuant to

It is unfair that a director or an auditor still remains in his position by rejecting the dismissal at a general meeting of shareholders despite the existence of the reason stipulated in Article 385 (2) of the Commercial Code. Therefore, it is allowed to request the court to dismiss the minority shareholder.

Therefore, it is true.