1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. Article 31(2) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation (hereinafter “instant articles of incorporation”) amended to the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as indicated in the attached list of the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “the resolution of this case”) requires the consent of “not less than 75% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares,” thereby making such a resolution impossible. This is more aggravated than the requirements for special resolution under the Commercial Act, which stipulates the requirements for removal of directors and modification of the articles of incorporation.

Therefore, since the resolution of this case is invalid in violation of the law, it is selectively sought to confirm the invalidity of the resolution of this case or the articles of association of this case as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is not the Defendant’s shareholder, and the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant resolution or the instant Articles of Incorporation is unlawful as there is no interest in confirmation. 2) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit by causing a dispute over management rights, thereby setting aside a market price profit.

Therefore, the claim of this case shall be dismissed on the ground that it constitutes an abuse of shareholder's rights.

2. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders or a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders becomes eligible for plaintiff. A lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders or a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity shall not be deemed as the benefit of confirmation unless it is directly infringed upon the specific rights or legal status of the company other than shareholders, directors, and auditors of the company in question by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da45141, Aug. 14, 1992). Thus, there is no evidence supporting that the plaintiff is the defendant's shareholder as of the date of the closing of argument in this case, and there is no other evidence supporting that the plaintiff is the defendant's shareholder.