1. On March 14, 2016, Defendant B Co., Ltd. is running part of the business of Defendant Jinsung Co., Ltd. (with regard to electrical construction).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 29, 2016, the Defendants divided part of the Defendant’s business of the Jinyeong Construction and merged the divided parts of Defendant B, and the Defendants decided to continue to exist respectively, and completed the registration of the merger on March 14, 2016.

(hereinafter the above division and merger are referred to as the “instant division and merger”). B.

The Defendants, within 2 weeks from the date of the resolution of the merger with respect to the merger with this case, publicly notified that the creditors of the company have an objection to the merger with this case within a period of not less than one month, and did not go through the creditor protection procedure (Article 530-11, Article 527-5 of the Commercial Act) to individually notify the creditors known of the merger with this.

C. The plaintiff is the auditor of defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 530-11(2) and Article 527-5(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “A company shall publicly announce that any creditor who has an objection to a merger, within two weeks from the date of a resolution passed by the general meeting of shareholders under Article 522, shall submit such objection within a period of not less than one month and make a peremptory notice to the creditors known to that effect.” In light of the fact that the merger by split brings a serious change in the company’s property, which is the security of claims, from the creditors of the company, and that the recovery of claims due to the merger by split may be considerably difficult, barring any special circumstance, if the procedures for protecting creditors under the Commercial Act are not properly implemented in the

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the merger after division is null and void.

However, as seen earlier, the defendants did not properly implement the creditor protection procedure under the Commercial Act, such as the peremptory procedure against the creditors in the merger by split in this case, and the merger by split in this case shall be in that procedure.