1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff co-litigation corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a shareholder holding 30,000 shares among the total 100,00 shares issued by the Intervenor. The Defendant was a joint representative director of the Intervenor on August 10, 2015, who was appointed on the part of the Intervenor and resigned on February 21, 2018.

B. Upon the imposition of KRW 73,454,050 on April 12, 2016, the Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Cheongju City Mayor to revoke the disposition of the imposition of waterworks charges (Cheongju District Court 2016Guhap11815), but the claim was dismissed on June 22, 2017.

The Intervenor appealed against the above judgment (Seoul High Court (Cheongju 2017Nu3282), and the appellate court dismissed the Intervenor’s appeal on the ground that the Intervenor’s appeal was unlawful since the Intervenor’s appeal was filed solely by M, among two joint representative directors, on December 13, 2017, since the Intervenor’s joint representative director was not affixed with the seals of the Defendant.

C. On May 12, 2017, upon the application of D, etc., the procedure for the auction of real estate for the auction of real estate for ten E apartment units owned by the Intervenor (Cheongju District Court G) and for the auction of real estate for the E apartment units owned by the Intervenor (Cheongju District Court J) on July 10, 2017, respectively, was initiated.

On July 26, 2017, the Defendant accused the Intervenor’s joint representative director M, the Plaintiff, and N on the charge of embezzlement. On July 26, 2017, the prosecutor issued a non-prosecution disposition on the charge of the above accusation.

(Cheongju District Public Prosecutor's Office 2016 type No. 33647). 【No dispute exists with the ground for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1-5, Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2, 5, Gap evidence No. 3-2, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, 8, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The reasoning of this court’s judgment as to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the Plaintiff’s co-litigation is deemed to be an intervenor, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the Intervenor’s claim

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion regarding the main defense of safety.