1. On October 28, 2013, Defendant 6, Inc., Ltd., was divided into part of the Daesung Engineering Co., Ltd.

1. As to the cause of claim

A. Articles 530-11(2) and 527-5(1) of the Commercial Act provide, “A company shall publicly announce that any creditor who has an objection to a merger, within two weeks from the date of a resolution of approval of the general meeting of shareholders under Article 522, shall submit the same within a period of not less than one month and make a peremptory notice to the creditors known to the effect that if the creditor has an objection to the merger, it shall be submitted within one month or more.” In light of the fact that the merger after division brings a serious change in the company’s property, which is the security of the claim, from the creditor of the company, and that the collection of the claim may be considerably difficult due to the merger after division, unless there

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the merger after division is null and void.

B. The Plaintiffs are the shareholders of the Defendant YID Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant YI”), and the Defendants divided part of the Daesung Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant YI”) around August 30, 2013 and merged the divided part of the Defendant YID, and the Defendants merged to each of them (hereinafter “this case’s merger after division”); the Defendants registered the facts of the instant merger after division on October 28, 2013; the Defendants did not undergo the creditor protection procedure in the process of the instant merger after division; and the facts that the Defendants did not undergo the creditor protection procedure in the process of the instant merger after division may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts as a whole: the Plaintiff and the Defendant YIC’s fact-finding’s fact-finding on the Plaintiff 1 and 2 evidence and the court’s confirmation of the distribution point of the Credit Guarantee Fund; and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant YIC, the Defendant YI will be deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Therefore, the division and merger of this case.