The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of this court's decision to this court's reasoning as to the plaintiff's assertion as the grounds for appeal under Paragraph 2, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The two to nine main judgments of the first instance court "(7,00,000 per share (1,000 won per share)" shall be subject to the investigation "B".

The title trust agreement of this case shall be referred to as "the title trust agreement of this case" under the third 1st table of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Each "B" of the 8 and 7 pages below the fourth top of the judgment of the first instance shall be put into "the defendant".

The 5 pages of the judgment of the first instance court stated that the phrase “(No. 2)” (the Defendant alleged that the share acquisition agreement (No. 2) and the share trust agreement (No. 3) were forged, but each of the above documents is deemed to have been authenticly prepared by F)” (as seen in the “additional judgment of this court,” as seen in the “additional judgment of this court”) was written by 1 to 8.

The 7th day of the judgment of the first instance shall be the "Plaintiff". The 7th day of the judgment of the first instance shall be the "Plaintiff."

The 8th 14th 14th to 9th 5th 5th 100 judgment of the first instance court ", however, from one to another."

"and the defendant asserted that the general meeting of shareholders of this case was actually held, and submitted the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders (No. 7 No. 1 of the evidence) to this court as a documentary evidence.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is in the position to exercise shareholder rights, such as the Defendant’s voting rights regarding the entire shares issued by the Defendant. The Defendant did not comply with any convocation procedure against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not attend the general meeting of shareholders of the instant case may be recognized by taking into account the dispute between the parties or the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of the evidence No. 7.

If so, the convocation procedure of the general meeting of this case is followed.