1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 24, 2017, the Defendant held the 35 regular shareholders’ meeting from the second floor of the R building located in Q Q of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seoul.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant general meeting of shareholders”). The Defendant publicly announced in advance the convocation of the general meeting of shareholders that “the entrance of the general meeting of shareholders other than the proceeding personnel is allowed from 8 A.M. on the day to 8 A.M. for the smooth progress of the event.”

B. The Plaintiffs, at around 07:00, arrived at the place of the above general meeting of shareholders prior to the attendance of the general meeting of shareholders, but the prior position was not allowed, and at around 08:00, the Plaintiffs’ position was allowed.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 12 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' claim of consolation money

A. The summary of the claim is that only the shareholders possessing the visa that was divided in advance, who had been in possession of the visa 08:00, had taken a prior position before 08:00, and the Plaintiffs, who had taken a new position at night, were allowed to enter after all their positions.

When the plaintiffs entered the meeting, the non-voting holder has opened the seat from the front seat of the general meeting of shareholders to the middle seat of the general meeting of shareholders.

In addition, in order to interfere with the plaintiffs' statements and inquiries, the defendant has made a sample of each part in advance and completed the preliminary practice. In fact, the defendant interfered with the plaintiffs' questions and remarks by releasing the plaintiffs' microphones made a statement at the general meeting of shareholders in this case and suspending forced speaking.

Since these acts violate the shareholder rights of the plaintiffs in violation of the principle of shareholder equality, the defendant must compensate the plaintiffs for mental damages caused by them.

The defendant seeks payment of 2,00,000 won as consolation money for each of the plaintiffs to the defendant.

B. (1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are the following: (a) Party A’s evidence Nos. 5 through 9, 12 through 17, and Party B’s evidence Nos. 5 and 6.