The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance is modified as stated in the following 2; and (b) it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following 3. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Revised parts

A. Following the second 10th “Troro”, the name of the Defendant is the same as that of the Defendant, but the representative director and the location of the head office are different.

“Addition”

(b)be added to the following "including 6: hereinafter the same shall apply):

(c) modify 4 6 o’n to “n’t”.

(d) revise the term “non-registration” for each “non-registration” in the fourth, fourth, fourth and last parallel of conduct to “non-registration”;

E. In addition to the following on the right side of “2022193” of the last six parallels, the court in this case dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s appeal filed under the suspension of proceedings due to J’s death was unlawful. In the case of Seoul High Court 2014Na2045704, which subsequently brought an appeal, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s decision on temporary general meeting of shareholders on March 12, 2013 was based on the Plaintiff’s list of shareholders as of July 29, 2013, even if the notice of convening the meeting was not given to F, who is deemed to have a 60% share in the convocation procedure, and there is no serious defect to the extent that the

“”

F. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 7, 15, 16, Eul evidence 12, 13, and witness K's testimony from 7th to 2th following modifications (1) as follows:

(A) On September 29, 2003, the Plaintiff was in a de facto state of business closure after the Plaintiff paid a default, and was dissolved on December 1, 2008 pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act.

(B) The representative director F of the Plaintiff made a resolution to continue the company on July 29, 2009.