1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a corporation that aims at the business of the relevant service industry, such as designing and manufacturing of computer peripheral devices and software. The Plaintiffs are shareholders who hold approximately 8,685,498 shares with approximately 24.95% of the Defendant’s total shares issued.

B. On December 31, 2011, the Defendant failed to secure an audit and inspection evidence which can reasonably be presumed to have an effect on financial statements, such as financial transactions and the appropriateness of allowances for bad debts, due to the vulnerability in internal control structure, such as the expenditure of funds, etc., by which an external auditor has not gone through appropriate procedures, with respect to the financial statements for the fiscal year as of December 31, 201. The Defendant received an audit opinion that there is a serious doubt about the capacity to continue the company as a continuing company, such as a decrease of 79% in the sales of the pertinent fiscal year in comparison with the sales of the pertinent fiscal year and a loss of 4.62 million won in the current fiscal year due to a failure to perform business activities. On March 20, 2012, the Defendant’s KOSDAQ was abolished, and its current account transaction was suspended

C. The Defendant was brought a lawsuit claiming a loan from UScom (Seoul Western District Court 2012Da3121), and the Defendant was served by public notice against the Defendant in the foregoing case, and the judgment against the Defendant was rendered on April 2012.

On March 30, 2012, the Defendant notified shareholders, including the Plaintiffs, of the convocation of the general meeting of shareholders; however, there was a notice to the effect that “the general meeting of shareholders shall be postponed to be held only at the expected place of the general meeting of shareholders,” but the general meeting of shareholders was not held. The Defendant’s head office is currently being used as another company’s office, and it is difficult for

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (hereinafter referred to as "branch number") and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and the judgment of them are the plaintiffs.