1. The part concerning the claim for nullification of a judgment in the first instance shall be revoked;

Of the instant lawsuits, the claim for invalidity confirmation is related to the claim.

Ⅰ. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part “3 and judgment” from 6.15 to 8.20 of the first instance judgment is the same as the reasoning for the first instance judgment, and thus, (b) this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ⅱ Part of the judgment of the first instance; and

3. Determination

A. 1) A claim seeking confirmation of nullity of the term of office of a director in a legal entity under the Civil Act, if the former director is not appointed even though the term of office of all or part of the director has expired, he/she may perform his/her previous duties until the new director is appointed, except in extenuating circumstances where it is deemed inappropriate to allow the former director whose term of office has expired to perform his/her duties. However, the former director's right to perform such duties is limited to cases where the former director whose term of office has expired is not a director but has to suspend his/her normal activities. Thus, if a legal entity is able to perform normal activities with another director whose term of office has not yet expired, it is not necessary to allow the former director whose term of office has expired to continue to perform his/her duties as a director, and in such a case, the former director naturally retires from his/her office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da40038, Dec. 23, 196).

Even if a new director is appointed after due process, it is illegal to seek confirmation of invalidation even if the initial resolution to replace the director is invalid, since it is a claim for confirmation of the past legal relationship or legal relationship.