1. Of the instant cases, the principal case was terminated on August 9, 2016 due to the final and conclusive decision of recommending reconciliation.

2. Of the instant case.

1. On January 2, 2015, the representative E, a controlling shareholder of the Defendant Company, notified the F of the dismissal of the representative director from office as the representative director of the Defendant Company. The F did not participate in the operation of the Defendant Company from February 2, 2015. However, in the corporate register of the Defendant Company, the fact that F is still recorded as the representative director is not in dispute between the parties, or that it is recognized in full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraph 1, B, and 7.

2. According to the records of the principal lawsuit, it is recognized that the original copy of the decision of recommending reconciliation made on July 20, 2016 by this court concerning the case of this Court No. 2015da5263207 (principal lawsuit), among the instant cases, was delivered to the Plaintiff on July 22, 2016, and that on July 25, 2016, the director of the Defendant company served each on the Defendant company on July 25, 2016, the representative director C of the Defendant company was the authority to represent the Defendant company on February 2, 2015, and himself was the only director of the Defendant company, and there was no objection as to the said decision of recommending reconciliation other than the above objection.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant company alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that F has resigned from the office of representative director of the defendant company (the evidence No. 7 is merely a notice that F would resign from the office of director of the defendant company, not a notice that the representative director of the defendant company would resign from the office of director of the defendant company). Since it is not recognized that F would have the right to dismiss F to the representative of the defendant company E, a shareholder of the defendant company, as the representative director of the defendant company, the defendant company,

In addition, even if F is recognized to have retired from the office of representative director of the defendant company as alleged in C, it cannot be said that C has the authority to represent the defendant company in accordance with Article 691 of the Civil Code.

This is because of civil law.