1. The Intervenor’s motion for the Intervenor’s participation is permitted.

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to determining the lawfulness of the motion to intervene in the Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the Defendant’s motion to intervene in the Defendant’s motion to intervene in the Defendant’

The 5th written box of the first instance judgment shall consist of the 5th to 7th six parallel boxes as follows.

A. The Defendant’s gist of the Defendant’s assertion is invalid because the Defendant’s resolution on the temporary board of directors on July 8, 2016, which was appointed as a director, did not go through lawful procedures, and the Plaintiff did not lawfully appoint the Defendant’s director. Furthermore, the Plaintiff resigned from the Defendant’s director on October 6, 2016. As such, the instant lawsuit was filed by a person who is not a director or filed for confirmation of the past legal relationship, and is unlawful as there

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not duly selected and appointed as the Defendant’s director, and the purport of the written evidence Nos. 28 and 29 as well as the entire pleadings, June 2016 and June 2016.

7. Around that time, the Defendant’s director was the F (Chairperson), G (Standing Director), W, X, U, and F on June 29, 2016, and F sent a notice of convening a temporary board meeting to the above directors on July 8, 2016 by registered mail. Accordingly, the temporary board of directors held on July 8, 2016 was present at the meeting of F, G, U, and the Plaintiff, H, and I was resolved to appoint the Defendant’s director according to the consent of all participating directors. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was duly selected and appointed the Defendant’s director through a resolution of the temporary board of directors adopted on July 8, 2016.

As to this, the defendant did not actually attend the provisional directors' meeting dated July 8, 2016 by G and U.S.

In the provisional society of July 8, 2016, H was selected and appointed as a director regardless of H’s will. As such, the temporary board of directors of July 8, 2016.