1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on January 3, 2017 and the change in exchange between this court and this court.

1. The reasons why the court of first instance should explain concerning the instant case are stated in the purport of the claim, except for modification as follows.

paragraphs (c) and (c)

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning a claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted by the main text

(A) As to the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on January 3, 2017 by the Defendant, the court did not claim any specific grounds for appeal in this court, and in light of the allegations and evidence submitted by the Plaintiff up to this court, the first instance judgment is reasonable). On the 5th instance judgment, the part of the 3 and 4th class “g” below is amended as follows.

G. Meanwhile, on February 17, 2017, C resigned from the Defendant’s representative director, and D was appointed as the Defendant’s representative director at the meeting held on the same day by the board of directors held on the same day. The grounds of the judgment of the first instance court from No. 16 to No. 7, No. 4, 2017

A. The part on the dial part shall be amended as follows:

『⑵ 2017. 1. 3.자 주주총회 결의 및 2017. 2. 17.자 이사회 결의 무효확인청구에 관한 주장 피고의 2017. 1. 3.자 주주총회에서 D과 E이 사내이사로 선임되고, 피고의 2017. 2. 17.자 이사회에서 D이 대표이사로 선임되었으나, ① 2017. 1. 3.자 주주총회의 경우 설립 당시의 정관 제18조 제2항에 의하면, 주주총회를 소집함에는 회의 일시, 장소와 회의의 목적사항을 기재한 통지서를 늦어도 회의일 2주 전에 등기항공우편으로 발송하거나 각 주주의 동의를 받아 전자문서로서 송부해야 하는데, C는 원고에게 위 주주총회의 소집통지를 하지 않았고, ② 2017. 2. 17.자 이사회의 경우 대표권이 없는 C에 의해 소집되어 진행됨으로써 정관이 정한 소집절차를 위반하였다. 따라서 위 주주총회 결의 및 이사회 결의는 모두 무효이므로 이에 대한 확인을 구한다.』 제1심판결문 제8면 제5, 6행을 다음과 같이 수정한다.

(2) A resolution of the board of directors on February 17, 2017 shall be adopted.