1. The plaintiff's motion to intervene in the lawsuit of this case and the independent party intervenor shall be dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be individually counted.

1. Basic facts - The plaintiff is a company not more than D.

(1) Of the shares of 200,000 shares (ordinary shares), 100,00 shares are owned by the shareholders, and the defendant is a director of the non-party company and the representative director of the non-party company, E, who is a director of the non-party company and the representative director of the non-party company. Meanwhile, the intervenor is a person who holds wage claim of 45,50,000 won against the non-party company. The non-party company closed its business on May 31, 2016.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant embezzled the amount of KRW 599,214,104 of the non-party company’s money to the Defendant. The non-party company has a claim for damages equivalent to the above embezzlement against the Defendant.

(2) The Plaintiff, as a shareholder of the non-party company, subrogated the right to claim damages of the non-party company, has the right to claim the distribution of residual property pursuant to Article 538 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the Plaintiff shall exercise KRW 200 million out of the above claim for damages against the defendant

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 200 million and damages for delay.

(3) The Plaintiff filed a shareholder representative lawsuit (preliminary claim) against the Defendant, as a shareholder holding more than 1/100 of the shares issued by the Nonparty Company, claiming that the Defendant pay KRW 200 million out of the above damage claim to the Plaintiff first and the Nonparty Company in preliminary action.

B. (1) The right to claim the distribution of residual property by a shareholder of the primary claim is lawful (ex officio determination) is specifically generated only when the liquidation procedure of the company is in progress, and the company’s obligation is fully satisfied and the non-party company closes its business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition, evidence Nos. 6, 7, 1, and 2 are respectively.