1. The defendant,

A. On May 3, 2019, the procedure for the registration of the resignation of a representative director on the ground of resignation to Plaintiff A, and on May 7, 2019.

1. The fact that the plaintiff A and D established the defendant for the development of app related to accounting; the plaintiff Eul is the defendant's internal director and the representative director; the plaintiff Eul is the defendant's internal director; the plaintiff Eul is the defendant's auditor; the above representative director, internal director, and the auditor registration has been completed on the defendant's corporate register; the plaintiff Eul submitted the representative director's letter on May 3, 2019; and the director's letter on May 7, 2019 to the defendant; and the fact that the plaintiff Eul submitted the auditor's letter on May 7, 2019 that the plaintiff Eul submitted the auditor's letter to the defendant on May 7, 2019 is not a dispute between the parties or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 7.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the resignation of the representative director on May 3, 2019, and the registration procedure for the resignation of the director on May 7, 2019 for the resignation of an inside director on the ground of resignation on May 7, 2019, and the plaintiff B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the resignation of the auditor on May 7, 2019.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The main point of the argument is that Plaintiff A and D agreed to jointly own the ownership of the app jointly developed after the establishment of the company for the purpose of jointly developing the app related to accounting. The issue of reversion of ownership of the said app and its exercise method, etc. to be completed after Plaintiff A’s resignation, was not yet resolved.

In addition, the plaintiff A and D developed the app with an external joint developer, and the plaintiff A tried to promote the business using the app separately from taking data related to the development of the app to the outside. This constitutes an occupational breach of trust against the defendant, and the plaintiff A owns 50% of the shares of the defendant while intending to resign the representative director and in-house director on the premise of the destruction of the business, and it is interpreted that it will interfere with and interfere with the future management of the company.

Therefore, the plaintiff A is the defendant with all his powers on the E App.