1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiffs and Nonparty E were the shareholders holding Defendant’s shares at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, D voluntarily prepared the written resolution of this case with the consent of all shareholders on September 12, 2013, stating themselves as the Defendant’s one-person shareholders, based on this, and registered the removal of directors against the Plaintiffs by means of a written consent of all shareholders. Accordingly, the instant resolution of the general meeting of shareholders cannot be deemed to exist.

B. At the time of Defendant’s assertion, D paid the full payment for the Defendant’s total outstanding shares, and held title trust with respect to the Plaintiffs, Nonparty E, F, and G, among which they were 52,00 shares, and thereafter, the Defendant’s one shareholder was lawful pursuant to Article 363(5) and (6) of the Commercial Act, since it requested other shareholders to arrange the title trust relationship, and the Defendant’s one shareholder was to acquire the entire shares owned by the Defendant from the other shareholders.

3. Determination

A. At the time of the establishment of the Defendant, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff A, and Nonparty E, each of 8,00 shares, F, 4,000 shares, and G were the Defendant’s shareholders who acquired shares of 2,00 shares. The resolution of the instant general shareholders’ meeting was as seen earlier, based on the premise that D was the Defendant’s shareholder, and that D was made by means of a written resolution with D’s consent. As such, as alleged by the Defendant, whether the Plaintiffs, Nonparty E, F, and G lost their status as the Defendant at the time of the resolution of the instant general shareholders’ meeting, and whether D was the Defendant’s shareholder.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 4, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, the shares of the Defendant F and G acquired at the time of the establishment of the Defendant 6,000.