1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on April 16, 2019 as the withdrawal of the Defendant’s appeal.

2. After filing an application for designation of the date.

The progress of the lawsuit in this case and the withdrawal of appeal are obvious or obvious in records in this court.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant against the Defendant on December 14, 2015, as stated in the purport of the claim, against the resolution of the temporary general meeting of shareholders held by the Defendant on November 21, 2018.

On November 29, 2018, the Intervenor appealed against the first instance judgment, and filed an appeal.

On April 16, 2019, the Defendant’s attorney, appointed as the Defendant’s legal representative, submitted a written withdrawal of appeal to this court on April 16, 2019. The Defendant’s legal representative includes the “cancellation of appeal” within the scope of the power of attorney delegated by the Defendant’s auditor who is the Defendant’s representative in the instant lawsuit.

On April 22, 2019, the Intervenor filed an application with this court for designating the date for pleading, stating that “The withdrawal of appeal filed with this court on April 16, 2019, is null and void, since the representative director was appointed with respect to the Defendant, and the acting representative director did not consent to the withdrawal of appeal.”

Judgment

As the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant on April 3, 2017, while the lawsuit of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was pending, the plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the defendant on August 31, 2017, and the representative director of the defendant was changed from the defendant's representative director to the auditor under Article 394 (1) of the Commercial Act.

However, as above, the provisional disposition decision that suspends the performance of duties of the representative director for the plaintiff was rendered after the representative of the defendant was changed to the audit (Seoul District Court Order 2018Kahap50271 dated August 28, 2018).

However, even if the defendant's representative director was decided to suspend the execution of his duties, it cannot be deemed that the application of Article 394 (1) of the Commercial Act to the lawsuit in this case was excluded.

This decision is the representative director of the defendant.