1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Company is a stock company that operates export and import business, textile manufacturing and sales business, service business, etc. and the total number of issued stocks is 48,000 shares.

The shares issued by the Defendant Company are 19,40 shares (as approximately 40.41% of the total number of issued shares, less than the second place, less than the second place, hereinafter the same shall apply), D holds 10,70 shares (as approximately 22.29% of the total number of issued shares), the Plaintiff holds 15,50 shares (as approximately 32.29% of the total number of issued shares), and E holds 2,400 shares (5% of the total number of issued shares), respectively.

The plaintiff is a shareholder of the defendant company who served as a director of the defendant company until March 10, 1998 and completed the registration of retirement on March 25, 1998.

B. On April 29, 2005, the Defendant Company sold the building and appurtenant facilities of the head office, and on August 10, 2006, sold the remaining factory owned by the Defendant Company, and from 2007 to 2013, the sales amount was “0 won”.

C. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a preliminary injunction to allow perusal of the books, etc. with the Seoul Southern District Court 2013Kahap2006, asserting that the management of the Defendant Company arbitrarily suspended production, spent abnormal expenses or contributed to a company that is not related to its business objectives, and that there is a high possibility of insolvency of net assets in light of the current situation, and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to allow perusal of the books, etc. against the Defendant Company. On December 18, 2013, the said court rendered a decision of acceptance with respect to some of the documents for which the Plaintiff is the subject of the application for perusal.

On March 7, 2014 and April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant Company a content-certified mail that points out issues, such as violation of the duty to preserve trade books, etc., shortage of bank deposits, neglect of claims to specially related companies, and window dressing accounting, etc. On August 19, 2014, “F recommended by the Plaintiff as a new auditor,” and on September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff requested the convening of an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders by proposing the “Dissolution of the Defendant Company,” respectively, but the Defendant Company called upon the Plaintiff’s request.