The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. (1) In the event a shareholder’s request for inspection and copying of accounting books, documents, etc. under Article 466(1) of the Commercial Act is filed with respect to the grounds of appeal on the permission and scope of inspection and copying, the company may refuse such request by proving that it is unreasonable. Whether the exercise of shareholder’s right to inspection and copying is unreasonable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the circumstances leading to the exercise

In particular, a shareholder’s exercise of the right to inspect and copy the company’s business or shareholders’ common interest, or a shareholder’s use of the information acquired as a competitor for the company’s competitive business, or an exercise of the information by choice of the company at an excessively unfavorable time should be deemed unfair for lack of justifiable purpose.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2003Ma1575, Dec. 24, 2004; Supreme Court Order 2013Ma657, Jul. 21, 2014). Meanwhile, since a shareholder who has exercised appraisal rights still holds the status as a shareholder while he/she is receiving the purchase price of shares from the company, a shareholder who has exercised appraisal rights still holds the status as a shareholder, barring any special circumstance, has a right to inspect accounting books, etc. as above, if necessary to exercise rights

In a case where it is deemed necessary for a shareholder to exercise his/her rights as a shareholder, such as holding a representative suit against a director of the company, holding a liability for failure to perform a representative suit, holding a demand for maintenance, or dismissing him/her, barring any special circumstance, the claim is aimed at protecting the company and the shareholder’s interests by supervising the management of the company. Therefore, the claim is unreasonable solely on the ground that

(2) The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted.