beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.31 2014나56739

주주총회결의 취소 및 부존재확인

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as follows: (a) the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows; and (b) the defendant's argument is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of "paragraph (3)" to the judgment of the court of first instance (except for the part concerning joint plaintiffs B, C, and D) and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) The 5th written judgment of the court of first instance in the 20th written judgment " with the plaintiff" shall be amended to "the plaintiff A".

B. Article 15 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance provides that "Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8 through 11, 16 through 20 of the A" shall be construed as "Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8 through 11, 16 through 20, 71 of the A [On the other hand, the defendant company asserted that the No. 10 of the A is a forged document, but in light of the description of Evidence No. 71 of the A, the evidence submitted by the defendant company and the defendant's supplementary intervenor up to the trial and the circumstances of its assertion are considered, it is not sufficient to recognize it even if all of the evidence submitted by the defendant company and the defendant's supplementary intervenor up to the trial, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

C. It is reasonable to view that the court of first instance had been well aware of the circumstances that "it is reasonable to see that the circumstances of return have been well known" of the 10th decision of the court of first instance.

[On the other hand, the defendant company asserted that the agreement of this case (Evidence A No. 8 only stated the name of the defendant's assistant participant in the above agreement and affixed the seal of the defendant's assistant participant in the above agreement, and it is merely an uneffective written agreement, unless it affixed the seal of the defendant's assistant participant in the above agreement. However, when combined with the statement of Evidence No. 8 and the whole purport of pleading, the agreement of this case is recognized as having entered the name by the defendant's assistant participant in writing, and it is only based on the facts recognized prior to the contents, stay and form of the above agreement.