1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of incorporation of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), the Plaintiff invested KRW 7.5 million in the Defendant Company, thereby acquiring shares of KRW 750,00 ( KRW 10,00 per share) among the total shares of KRW 5,00.

(15%) percent (15%) of equity;

On August 21, 2002, the Defendant Company issued 11,000 new shares (10,000 won per share) (hereinafter “the primary capital increase”) and additionally issued 30,000 new shares (10,000 won per share) on April 16, 203 (hereinafter “the secondary capital increase”).

C. In the process of the second capital increase, 1,406 shares are issued in the name of the Plaintiff, and the shares of the Defendant Company currently in the name of the Plaintiff are 2,156 shares (4.7% shares).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 10, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant company and the representative director of the defendant company issued new shares without notifying the plaintiff of the issuance of new shares due to the capital increase in 1 and 2. In particular, at the time of the second capital increase, the plaintiff deprived of the plaintiff's opportunity to acquire new shares by issuing new shares in the name of the plaintiff without the plaintiff's permission, thereby causing losses to the plaintiff's share ratio from 15% to 4.7%. Thus, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the profits of 99,742,200 won for new shares 6,150 shares that the plaintiff could have been issued.

3. As to whether the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of the issuance of new shares at the time of the capital increase in the first and second instances, it is not sufficient to recognize the contents alone as stated in the health class, Gap Nos. 3 through 5, and No. 7 through 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the authenticity of each document is presumed to have been established because there is no dispute over the part of the Plaintiff’s stamp image of the evidence Nos. 1-2, 1-2, 15-1, 2-3, 4-3, 4-4 of the evidence Nos. 4, the board of directors’ meeting minutes, certificates, certificates of subscription, certificates of subscription, shares subscription form, and each of the above documents.

The plaintiff is each of the above documents.