1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s assertion regarding this safety defense was deemed to have been dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 5, 2016, because the Plaintiff did not engage in business activities for a long period prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and accordingly, deemed to be in the process of liquidation. The instant lawsuit is unlawful since it was filed by delegation of the Plaintiff’s internal director, who is not a liquidator, to the legal representative.

Judgment

Where a company is dissolved, if there are other provisions in the articles of incorporation or does not appoint a liquidator separately at a general meeting of shareholders except for cases of merger or bankruptcy (Article 531 of the Commercial Act), a director shall naturally act as liquidator (Article 531 of the Commercial Act) and there is no registration of the

The same applies to the dissolution of a company, and if the company is dissolved, the case where the dissolution is deemed to be dismissed shall be included.

(1) The Plaintiff’s director is a liquidator even if the Plaintiff was dissolved and is in liquidation proceedings. Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the Defendant’s assertion, it cannot be deemed that there is an illegal cause, such as the issue of representation in the lawsuit of this case, which was delegated to the attorney by the Plaintiff’s director.

On a different premise, the first defendant's main defense is without merit.

The Defendants are co-owners of each 1/3 share of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendants to purchase the instant real estate located within a land transaction permission zone under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”) in the said area (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,603,300,000 to the Defendants on the same day.

【Unsatisfied facts, Gap's evidence, respectively.