According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. From January 5, 2005 to March 23 of the same year, the offender served as the only representative director of the non-applicant 1 corporation (hereinafter “instant company”).

B. The executive officers of the instant company (hereinafter “instant executive officers”) indicated in the attached list, including the offender, retired around March 2005, as shown in the same list.

C. The offender did not make a registration of retirement of the instant executive officers for several months from March 2005 to December 2005, which was the time of the instant executive officer’s retirement.

D. Accordingly, on July 20, 2006, the lower court rendered a summary decision to impose an administrative fine of KRW 800,000 on the offender under Article 635(1)1 of the Commercial Act. On September 22, 2006, the lower court made a summary decision to impose an administrative fine of KRW 800,000 on the offender, and on September 22, 2006, the lower court made a summary decision to impose an administrative fine of KRW 80,000 on the offender under Article 635(

E. The offender filed the instant immediate appeal against the said decision.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

As of March 23, 2005, the appellant was dismissed from the office of the representative director of the company of this case and thereafter there is no right or duty as the representative director, so there is no obligation to register the retirement of the officers of this case or to appoint a successor representative director, and since the remaining directors conduct the above business, it is unreasonable to impose an administrative fine on the appellant by applying Article 635 (1) 1 and 8 of the Commercial Act.

3. Determination

According to Articles 389(3) and 386(1) of the Commercial Act, a representative director of a corporation has a duty to register when any matter to be registered under the Commercial Act occurs as an executive officer of the corporation, and a successor is to be appointed in the event of a vacancy in the office of a representative director due to resignation, and under Articles 389(3) and 386(1) of the Commercial Act, where the representative director is vacant due to resignation, the representative director still has the right and duty as the representative director until the new representative director is appointed. In this case, since the appellant who was the only representative director of the company of this case resigns from office of the representative director on March 23, 2005, the representative director of the company of this case has a duty to register as the representative director, i.e., the duty to register as the representative director, until the latter representative director is appointed, and as such, the appellant has neglected such duty, it is justifiable that the court of appeal makes a decision imposing a fine for negligence under Article 635(1)1)1 and 8 of the Commercial Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)