1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant's list is separate from the list in the separate sheet made at the general meeting of shareholders on November 3, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company running a marriage wedding business, etc. with a total amount of KRW 25 million. From August 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was working as a co-representative of the Defendant’s joint representative from November 3, 2016, when the Plaintiff sought confirmation of existence of the resolution, etc., to be dismissed from the general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”).

B. At the time of August 2014, the Plaintiff introduced D and E through C, a co-representative of the Defendant’s current co-representative director, who was performing the Defendant’s duties, with the Plaintiff, and agreed with E to select and appoint D as a co-representative of the Defendant’s joint representative director, instead of receiving KRW 200 million from E on August 27, 2014, shareholders (F, G, and H) at the time of the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, at the time of the Defendant’s offering of KRW 200 million from E, instead of receiving KRW 200 million from E.

According to the above agreement, the defendant's general meeting of shareholders increased the shares of the company from 10,00 to 50,000 shares on the same day and decided to appoint D as a joint representative director with the plaintiff, and E paid 200 million won of the share acquisition price and accepted 40,000 shares of the defendant.

C. After that, on October 24, 2016, D’s joint representative director D sent a muster notice to the Plaintiff, E, G, H, and F, who is the Defendant’s shareholder at the time of the Defendant’s notice that the Defendant’s general meeting of shareholders was held on November 3, 2016 at the 13th floor conference room of the Gangnam-gu Seoul International Building I, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. However, G and F did not contain an erroneous statement of address on the muster notice.

At the time of convening the general meeting of shareholders of this case, the number of shareholders and shares owned by the defendant are as follows, and the defendant's director was the plaintiff and D2.

Plaintiff F 2,500 G 4,000 G 4,000 G H 1,000 total of 50,000 shares [based] / [In the absence of dispute, Gap 2,3,4,4,19,42 shares (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply].