1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are those who were appointed as the Defendant’s non-standing director on March 18, 2014, respectively.

B. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant held a board of directors on the ground that “The Plaintiff, despite the fact that the party complained against was unable to spend the cost of attorney-at-law appointment for the criminal complaint case that is an individual as the Defendant’s funds, the 10th meeting of the 10th board of directors on October 26, 2016, issued an unlawful and unfair resolution by the board of directors for the criminal complaint case (suspect: D and E) under the Act on Honorary Damage, etc. to the Publication 2016-Type 15278 to disburse the cost of attorney-at-law appointment from the partnership.” The Defendant decided to improve the Plaintiff A and to suspend the Plaintiff’s duties for six months

(hereinafter “each of the instant disciplinary actions”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-1, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. As the Defendant’s main defense to the instant disciplinary action expired on March 17, 2018 due to the expiration of the term of office of a director as of March 17, 2018, the Defendant’s claim to nullify the invalidity of each of the instant disciplinary action is unlawful as it is not merely a claim for confirmation

B. Although a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the current rights or legal status, if the current rights or legal status has been affected even in the past legal relations, and it is deemed that obtaining a judgment for confirmation of the legal relations is an appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions in the present rights or legal status, there is benefit in confirmation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1496, Nov. 26, 2002). The facts that the Plaintiffs assumed office as the Defendant’s director on March 18, 2014 are as seen earlier. The Defendant’s articles of incorporation provide for the term of office of the directors for four years (Article 56(1)), and the Plaintiffs are the terms of office on March 17, 2018.