According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff et al. alleged that the general meeting of January 18, 1964 violated Article 362 of the Commercial Act by an unauthorized auditor 1, and the defendant asserted that the shareholders on the shareholder registry as of December 28, 1963 were non-party 21 and followed a combined procedure such as convening a temporary general meeting of shareholders and obtaining a resolution of change of officers after holding the same general meeting of shareholders on December 29, 1963. Thus, in this case, the court below decided that the non-party 1 convened the general meeting of the non-party 1 and holding the general meeting of the non-party 362 of the Commercial Act by holding the general meeting of the non-party 1 as a party, and the non-party 1 did not appear to have violated the above provisions of the Commercial Act and the articles of incorporation of the general meeting of the non-party 1 as of December 18, 1964.

However, since the purpose of the Act on the Procedure for the Convocation of the General Meeting of Shareholders is to protect the interests of each shareholder, the provisional shareholders' meeting on January 18, 1964 was convened by the convocation of a non-authorized person, and even if the above procedure for the convocation of the general meeting is unlawful because the quorum and resolution procedure of the board of directors to call the provisional general shareholders' meeting is defective, it is argued by the defendant, and as argued by the court below, if the defendant company attends the meeting as a single shareholder and agrees to hold the general meeting and makes a resolution without any objection, the resolution itself is illegal, notwithstanding that there is no reason to see that it is illegal. However, the court below's judgment on the grounds of appeal cannot be dismissed by the judgment of the court below as stated above, and there is no reason to see that it is unlawful.

In addition, according to the original judgment, the above error of the court below is clear that it affected the judgment of the court below on the provisional shareholders' meeting on April 25, 1964, and therefore, pursuant to Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the part against the defendant against plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu