1. The defendant assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the intervenor joining the defendant.

purport.

1. A resolution (hereinafter referred to as “the first resolution by the board of directors”) by the Defendant’s board of directors on December 21, 2013, including the gists of the Plaintiffs’ assertion and the subject matter of the appellate judgment, to appoint G (the Intervenor’s supplementary intervenor), H, I, J, and K (hereinafter referred to as “G, etc.”) as a director is null and void (the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that the board of directors shall attend a meeting with the attendance of the majority of the registered directors and make a resolution by the majority of the directors present, and the Defendant’s number of directors is eight, and only two directors at the time are present).

In addition, the Defendant’s resolution to appoint G, etc. as a director at the board of directors on January 20, 2014 (hereinafter “the second board of directors resolution of this case”) is not held, or is null and void due to lack of convening procedures and lack of quorum.

Plaintiff

A, B, and C were the Defendant’s directors and resigned on January 20, 2014, and the directors, Plaintiffs D, and E currently were the Defendant’s directors, and seek confirmation on the invalidation of the Defendant’s first resolution by the board of directors, and the invalidity of the second resolution by the board of directors of this case as the Defendant’s directors.

(2) The court below's decision on the legitimacy of the appeal filed by the defendant is justified, since only the defendant's supplementary intervenor is clearly stated in the record that only the defendant's supplementary intervenor was appealed, and the decision is made on the legitimacy of the appeal filed by the defendant supplementary intervenor.

A. (1) The summary of the defense of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s main defense does not have any interest in confirmation for the following reasons.

(A) On August 8, 2013, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, who complies with the substantive relations, decided to acquire the Defendant’s right to operate from the Defendant from the Defendant to KRW 6 billion (a contract amount of KRW 1 billion).

(No. 3 and No. 1). With regard to the above transfer and acquisition contract, Plaintiff E and Defendant Representative L, on August 8, 2013, replaced two outside directors and two directors with respect to the payment of down payment and intermediate payment 2.5 billion won to the Defendant’s assistant intervenors, and appointed Defendant representative L and Plaintiff E from office.