1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Since the establishment of the Defendant around 2000, the Plaintiff’s assertion was practically owned and operated with 100% of the Defendant’s shares. However, as a result of bankruptcy due to the fact that the Defendant’s representative director bears a large amount of guarantee obligations, the Plaintiff resigned from the Defendant’s representative director on May 16, 201, and made the spouse C and his/her children D, who held the Defendant’s shares in title trust, elected the Plaintiff as the representative director under the name of C and the Plaintiff as the inside director, respectively.

Thus, even though the representative director of the defendant is still the plaintiff, C claims that he is the actual representative director, excludes the plaintiff, and independently operates the defendant, and the defendant's representative director is the plaintiff.

2. Determination: (a) The representative director of a corporation is appointed by a resolution of the board of directors; or (b) the articles of incorporation provide for the appointment at a general meeting of shareholders (Article 389(1) of the Commercial Act); (c) In this case, there is no particular dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the fact that C and D assumed as the Defendant’s shareholder by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders under the Articles of incorporation of the Defendant, registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders, and registered as the Defendant’s shareholder by such resolution.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the defendant's representative director is "C" elected at a general meeting of shareholders, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.