1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is a company that engages in software development and sales business, game development and sales business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a shareholder who owned 3.98% of the shares issued by the Defendant as a representative director and in-house director by March 30, 2014.

B. (1) On March 25, 2015, the Defendant held a regular general meeting of shareholders on March 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”) and resolved on each item of agenda indicated in the separate sheet.

(2) At the time of the instant general meeting of shareholders, the Defendant’s list is as follows.

No. 1 A 441,780 Shares 2 C 229,500 Shares 3D 229,500 Shares 4 E 162,500 Shares 5 F 132,000 Shares 6G 7 G 100 shares 8 G 8 G 100 shares 9 J 100 shares 31,800 shares 11 shares 31,800 shares 12 M 12 M 22,600 shares 13 N 18,30,00 shares 1,30,00 shares total 1,30 shares / [based grounds for recognition], Gap 2,7, Eul evidence 1 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of each of the arguments, as a whole.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. 1) As the Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders exercised the voting right as an agent of O who is not qualified as a shareholder, the resolution of the instant general meeting of shareholders is made by a person who has no voting right, and thus, the non-existence or revocation of the voting right should be made. 2) Defendant F exercised the voting right on behalf of the Plaintiff N who owns 18,300 shares of the Defendant at the general meeting of shareholders of this case and did not exercise the voting right as an agent of O

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be acknowledged as having exercised the voting right at the general meeting of shareholders of this case as the O’s agent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① N on March 24, 2015, which owned 18,300 shares of the Defendant around the general meeting of shareholders of this case, was prior to the day of the general meeting of shareholders.