1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that “The appeal of the Defendant and the Prosecutor was all dismissed on April 27, 2016 (the Chuncheon District Court 2014No981), and the Defendant’s appeal is currently pending in the final appeal (Supreme Court 2016Do6721).” As such, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant is a director and a representative director of the company of this case, and ① did not pay dividends to the plaintiffs who are members of the company of this case since 2013, and even if they had already transferred part of the company of this case to the plaintiffs, they entered into a contract with E to transfer not less than the shares owned by the defendant without a resolution of a general meeting of members, and received a conviction of fraud in a criminal trial on the grounds that they

② In addition, there was damage to the company due to theless transaction, and as a result, it was punished for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act four times from 1994 to 2002.

③ Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs, who are members of the instant company, were unfairly excluded from the management of the instant company. On April 24, 2013, a member of the instant company, transferred his/her share to F without a resolution of a general meeting of members, thereby having F operate the instant company. The company is unreasonably operating the company to the extent that it can not be confirmed even by viewing the official document as to who is the representative director of the instant company.

Therefore, the defendant should be dismissed from office as the representative director and director of the company of this case, because he did misconduct in relation to his duties, or violated the statutes or the articles of incorporation.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine director’s misconduct in performing his/her duties or the relevant statutes or the articles of incorporation.