1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. Each resolution of the board of directors listed in the Defendant’s separate sheet is null and void.

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s directors, who were the Defendant’s directors, resigned from office; (b) the Defendant’s meeting minutes of the board of directors prepared on November 29, 2010; (c) the resignation of the Defendant’s president as of December 16, 2010; and (d) the appointment of E as the chief director upon the resolution of the board of directors made on May 30, 201; (c) the appointment of I and J as each director according to the resolution of the board of directors convened by E; and (d) the appointment of K and L as each director according to the resolution of the board of directors convened by E as of August 2, 2013; or (e) there is no dispute between the parties concerned; or (e) the appointment of each director according to the resolution of the board of directors convened by E as of August 2

2. The plaintiff's main claim is determined by the resolution of the board of directors as of November 29, 201, and the defendant's board of directors as of December 16, 2010, May 30, 201, and August 2, 2013, the board of directors as of August 29, 201 is called up by E to be appointed as a director by the resolution of the board of directors as of November 29, 2010, and each of the above resolutions of the board of directors is not in existence, but there is no evidence to support that each of the above resolutions of the board of directors was not in fact held. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's board of directors of the defendant of November 29, 2010 held preliminary claims in preliminary proceedings without legitimate convocation notice. Each board of directors of December 16, 201, May 30, 201, and August 29, 2013, which was convened by E appointed as a director by the resolution of the board of directors of November 29, 2010. Thus, the above board of directors asserts that each resolution of the board of directors of November 29, 201 is seriously defective in the procedure and invalid.

On the other hand, Article 21 of the defendant's articles of incorporation provides that "the board of directors shall convene the board of directors, and the meeting of the board of directors shall be convened at least seven days prior to the meeting in writing stating the purpose, agenda items, date, time, place of the meeting, etc., and H, the defendant's president at the time of the meeting of the board of directors on November 29, 2010, who was the chief director of the board of directors.