1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company established on July 14, 1959 and listed on the Korea Exchange market on September 30, 1975, and is engaged in the production and sale business of the electronic instruments, related organizations, and their parts as its major business. The plaintiff A is a shareholder who holds 73,805 shares of the defendant (0.11% of the total number of shares issued by the defendant), the plaintiff B is 30,410 shares of the defendant (0.04% of the total number of shares issued by the defendant), and the plaintiff C is a shareholder who holds 7,104,283 shares of the defendant (10.26% of the total number of shares issued by the defendant).

B. On March 30, 2015, the Defendant decided to hold a regular general meeting of shareholders and the instant resolution (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”) on March 30, 2015, and as the Defendant’s term of office of director expires as of March 30, 2015, the instant general meeting of shareholders proposed the agenda that the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor is re-appointed as an intra-company director (Article 4’s bill: the case of appointment of intra-company director(candidate E); hereinafter “instant bill”).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendant’s representative director F, stated the date, time and place of the ordinary shareholders’ meeting in 2015, and the purpose of the meeting, was stated, and the instant general shareholders’ meeting was held on March 30, 2015. As a result of voting on the instant agenda, the number of shareholders present at the meeting was 47,153,232, the number of shareholders present at the meeting, 24,369,79, the number of dissenting votes was 22,114,470, the number of voting rights was 22,114,470, the number of invalid voting rights was 668,963, the majority of the shareholders’ voting rights present at the meeting (51.68%) and 35.19% of the total number of shareholders present at the 668,963, and the Defendant’s Intervenor

(hereinafter referred to as “instant resolution”). C.

(1) On the day when the general meeting of shareholders of this case is held, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s motion to appoint as the Defendant’s internal director, and the Plaintiffs’ motion as follows:

(a)bed;

There is a defect in the description in the subsection.