1. It is confirmed that there is no resolution to appoint C as a director at a general meeting of shareholders of the defendant on February 15, 2008.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company that runs the business of manufacturing and selling motor vehicle parts. The plaintiff is a shareholder who holds 4,000 shares out of 10,000 shares of the defendant.

B. At the time of 2008, the status of shareholders and stockholding listed in the Defendant’s register of shareholders is as listed below.

The number of shares held by stockholders 1D (each part of the plaintiff), 4,000 2, 400 2, 400 30% 300 - F 4% 600 - 6% 5% 500 G (the plaintiff's ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves ves

C. On February 15, 2008, Defendant Representative D prepared the minutes of the extraordinary shareholders’ meeting (hereinafter “instant extraordinary shareholders’ meeting”) stating that “D, Plaintiff, C, and auditor have made a resolution to appoint F as a director,” and completed registration for modification on February 21, 2008 based on the minutes of the said extraordinary shareholders’ meeting.

However, in relation to the provisional shareholders' meeting of this case, the defendant did not give notice to the remaining shareholders except D among the shareholders listed in the defendant's list, and there is no fact that the above provisional shareholders' meeting was held.

【No dispute over the grounds for recognition】 Any entry in the Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the Evidence No. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant did not make a notification of convening the temporary shareholders' meeting of this case prior to holding the temporary shareholders' meeting of this case and did not go through legitimate convocation procedures. In fact, since the temporary shareholders' meeting of this case was not held, the resolution of the temporary shareholders' meeting of this case is not deemed to exist, and as long as the defendant is dissatisfied with this, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the above resolution as the plaintiff who is the defendant's shareholder.

Therefore, there is no resolution of the provisional shareholders' meeting of this case unless there are special circumstances.