1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation operating passenger transport business, etc., and the Defendants are shareholders holding stocks issued by the Plaintiff.

B. On February 23, 2015, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking perusal and copying of accounting books, etc. ( Daejeon District Court 2015Gahap101379).

On April 11, 2016, an appellate court of the said lawsuit (Seoul High Court 2015Na13759) rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation of the following contents (hereinafter “instant decision of compulsory conciliation”). The instant decision of compulsory conciliation became final and conclusive on April 29, 2016, on which both the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not raise an objection to the said decision, and the instant decision of compulsory conciliation became final and conclusive on April 29, 2016.

1. The defendant (the plaintiff in this case; hereinafter the same shall apply) (including one certified public accountant designated by the plaintiff B) and D shall allow the plaintiff (the defendant in this case; hereinafter the same shall apply) to peruse and copy the attached documents only within business hours at the defendant's head office or the storage place of the relevant document.

2. The Plaintiffs:

A. A copy of the document under Paragraph 1 shall not be presented and submitted to the administrative office in charge of the defendant (excluding the court, the prosecution, and the police) for filing a civil petition. If that is, the plaintiffs jointly pay to the defendant a penalty of KRW 5 million per violation.

(b) No disclosure of the Defendant’s trade secret known to the Defendant through the documents set out in paragraph 1 shall be made. If so, all the Defendant’s liability for damages arising from the divulgence shall be borne.

3. Where the Defendant did not perform his/her duty of inspection and copying as described in paragraph (1) by May 31, 2016, Plaintiff B and D may apply for indirect compulsory performance for the enforcement of the obligation described in paragraph (1), and the Defendant does not raise any objection against this.

C. The Plaintiff’s perusal period to the Defendants on May 3, 2016 according to the instant compulsory adjustment order is from May 25, 2016 to May 25, 2016.

5. 31." and time of inspection was designated as ‘within the business hours' and notified Defendant B and Defendant D of their intention to peruse and copy the same.