1. The issuance of new shares with a face value of 5,000 won per face value per the Defendant on March 18, 2019 shall become null and void.

2...

In fact, the defendant is a company established for the purpose of solar power generation business and new and renewable energy business, and the plaintiff is the defendant's internal director and shareholder.

C was appointed as the representative director of the defendant on January 8, 2019.

As of January 29, 2019, the total number of the defendant's shares was 6,000 shares (one share) and held 4,000 shares among them and 2,000 shares owned by the plaintiff among them.

On March 18, 2019, the Defendant holds a board of directors (hereinafter “Board of Directors of this case”) and issues 16,000 common shares of 5,00 per share (hereinafter “instant new shares”) and completed the registration of changing the total number of shares issued by the Defendant from 6,000 to 22,00 shares on March 20, 2019.

The Defendant allocated all of the new shares to C at the meeting of the instant case.

On the other hand, E, the inside director of the Defendant, and F, the father of the Plaintiff, have actually been operating the Defendant. On November 21, 2018 and March 5, 2019, E interfered with F’s business by force by arbitrarily changing the password of the entrance door of the Defendant office from the entry of F.

‘Along with the criminal facts, the sentence of a fine of 50,000 won was imposed (Seoul District Court 2019 High Court 2019 High Court 538), and on September 2, 2019, there was a conflict between E and F, such as embezzlement of F (the above case was sent to the prosecutor's office on January 6, 2020).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 6, and the plaintiff alleged the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant allocated the new shares of this case to Eul, not a shareholder, even though there was no urgent managerial necessity. The plaintiff did not notify or publicly notify the plaintiff, a shareholder of the issue of the

The issuance of new shares is in violation of the shareholder's preemptive right in violation of Article 418 of the Commercial Act, and the above board of directors did not notify the Plaintiff, a company director, of the convocation of the instant board of directors.