1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Judgment ex officio is made.

According to the records of this case, the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant by the Plaintiff, a corporation, (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on September 11, 2019, and the suit was accompanied by the delegation of the lawsuit made by the Plaintiff Company as a delegating person. According to the fact that the representative director of the Plaintiff Company was the Defendant and the entire certificate of the registration of the Plaintiff Company, the fact that there was no auditor in the Plaintiff Company as of June 26, 2018, and the fact that the representative director was omitted in the delegation of the lawsuit was omitted.

Article 394 of the Commercial Act provides that “When a company files a lawsuit against a director, the auditor shall represent the company in connection with the lawsuit.” However, there is no statutory auditor in the Plaintiff company, and thus, a special representative shall be appointed pursuant to Articles 64 and 62 of the Civil Procedure Act as being “where it is impossible to exercise the power of representation of the Plaintiff company due to de facto

Nevertheless, without appointing a special representative, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, representing the natural person as its representative.

In addition, since the representative is omitted in the delegation letter of the lawsuit, the defendant, a natural person, affixed a letter of delegation of the lawsuit of this case on behalf of the plaintiff company or cannot represent the plaintiff company, shall be deemed to have affixed the letter of delegation of the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff company.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is deemed unlawful in violation of Article 394 of the Commercial Act and Articles 64, 62, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Furthermore, even though the presiding judge's order of correction on March 9, 2020 was served on March 10, 2020 by the attorney of the plaintiff company, the correction was not made at all so that it exceeded the time limit.

Therefore, in such a case, it is reasonable to view that the defects cannot be corrected.

However, Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act is a judgment without holding any pleadings in cases where the defects cannot be corrected as a legal action.