1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a minority shareholder holding 5/100 of the Defendant’s issued shares, and around 2004, the Plaintiff sought perusal and copying of the account books and documents listed in the separate sheet 1 to 11 in accordance with Article 466 of the Commercial Act for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Defendant embezzled land purchase costs, etc. in the course of carrying out the business of construction of Kusung L&A Co., Ltd and the C Housing.

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff, not the defendant's shareholder, is unlawful.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff is a shareholder who holds no less than 3/100 of the total number of shares issued by the Defendant.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 3, 10, 12, and 13, the plaintiff was a promoter who acquired 10,000 shares out of the total number of shares issued on June 28, 200 at the time of the defendant's incorporation, and the defendant increased the total number of shares issued on November 17, 2001 to 60,000 shares and increased to 3,000 shares in the name of the plaintiff. D, which was the former representative director of the defendant, "the plaintiff transferred 3,00 shares to G on March 31, 2003" is subject to criminal punishment for forging a sales contract under the name of the plaintiff.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in the statements No. 7-2, No. 7-1, No. 1, and No. 2, that is, at the time of the establishment of the defendant, the capital was paid D at the time of the establishment of the defendant, and the capital increase was also made on Nov. 17, 2001, and D transferred all the defendant's shares to E around April 8, 2003, and the defendant's shares issued on the defendant's list of shareholders are transferred to E, and all the defendant's shares issued on the defendant's list of shareholders are transferred to F, the spouse of E and E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff is in accordance with Article 466(1) of the Commercial Act.