1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On August 25, 2014, the Defendant was registered for the purpose of manufacturing and selling electrical equipment. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of the Defendant. At the time of the establishment of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was a shareholder of the Defendant. There was no notification that the inaugural general meeting was held at the time of establishment of the Defendant. ② In fact, the inaugural general meeting was not held, ③ the promoters did not consent to the preparation of the documents related to the establishment or delegated the authority to make the documents, and C made a false minutes of the general meeting with signatures and seals affixed by the head of the certified judicial scrivener office

Therefore, this is not effective in accordance with the Civil Code Article 103, 107 or 108.

(4) On the other hand, share capital has been paid in advance, ⑤ there was no fact that directors and auditors have been appointed pursuant to Article 296 of the Commercial Act, and ④ there was no fact that auditors have investigated and reported pursuant to Article 298

Therefore, the establishment of the defendant is null and void.

Judgment

If the defendant's incorporation method Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 3 added the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant's promoters are Eul, E, F, G, D, A, and H, and the fact that the defendant's shares are reverted only to the promoters at the time of incorporation can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant was established by promotion of incorporation rather than the recruitment establishment, and since the inaugural general meeting under Article 308 of the Commercial Act does not require to be held in the case of promotion of incorporation, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the inaugural general meeting is the requirement for establishment of the

As to the assertion that the documents related to the establishment were prepared voluntarily without the consent of the promoters, it is difficult to believe that the Gap evidence No. 5, the witness evidence No. 1, and the witness evidence No. 2 through 4, the evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2, and the witness I's testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the Eul voluntarily made documents related to the establishment of the defendant through the chief of the certified judicial scrivener office and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul.