1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The court of first instance rejected the claim for dismissal of the representative director among the instant lawsuit, and cited the claim for dismissal of the director.

With regard to this, only the Defendants filed an appeal against the part of the claim for dismissal of director, which is the part against the Defendants.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C embezzled the funds of the Defendant Company and committed an act in violation of the statutes, and sought to dismiss Defendant C as a director of the Defendant Company pursuant to Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act.

B. Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act provides, “If a director refuses to dismiss him/her at a general meeting of shareholders even though he/she has committed an unlawful act in connection with his/her duties, or a serious violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation, any shareholder who holds no less than 3/10 of the total issued and outstanding shares may request the court to dismiss him/her within one month from the

Therefore, it is unreasonable that a director's action for dismissal of a shareholder still remains in his/her position by rejecting the dismissal at a general meeting of shareholders even though there are illegal acts related to the performance of duties and other reasons stipulated in Article 385 (2) of the Commercial Act. Therefore, the purpose of the lawsuit is to deprive the court of the status of a person who is currently in his/her position for the remaining

Therefore, a person to be dismissed has the benefit of action only when he is currently in the position of director.

C. However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 and 31, Defendant C retired from office as a director of the Defendant Company at the expiration of the term of office on March 31, 2015, when the court of first instance was pending, and the Defendant C Company 50,000 capital.