이사회 결의 무효 확인 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant is an incorporated foundation whose purpose is to create, maintain, and manage a park cemetery. On October 24, 2007, the plaintiff was appointed as a director with the defendant's representative authority.
B. The Defendant’s minutes of the board of directors held on September 1, 2008 are prepared as a resolution of the Defendant’s board of directors (hereinafter “instant resolution”) to resign from the board of directors having the power of representation and appoint C as a director with the power of representation.
C. On November 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking nullification, etc. of the instant resolution with the purport that “the Plaintiff has not resigned from office as a director with the Defendant’s power of representation, and there was no fact that the board of directors was held on September 1, 2008 by the Defendant, and that the minutes of the board of directors were prepared as if he/she was appointed as a director with the Defendant’s power of representation.” However, the Plaintiff was subject to a judgment against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2013 (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Gahap463) (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Na4303 decided August 28, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da70566 Decided January 15, 2015), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is, as it is,.
(hereinafter referred to as “judgment in a prior suit”). [Judgment in a prior suit] contain no dispute, entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6, Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. On September 1, 2008, when the resolution of this case was adopted and recorded in the minutes of the board of directors, the board of directors was not held on September 1, 2008, and there was no legitimate notice of convening a board of directors under the defendant's articles of incorporation regarding the holding of the above board of directors. Although there was no letter of resignation that the plaintiff resigned from the defendant director, the defendant's side forged a letter of resignation from the plaintiff's name
This fact could not be asserted or proved by the plaintiff without negligence until the conclusion of the trial proceedings in the previous case.