소유권이전등기말소 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the court’s explanation of this case is to dismiss the “Liquidators” under Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance as the “Liquidators”; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance as stated in the following Section 2.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, at the time of cancelling the agreement on the sales contract between the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant B, the director of the Plaintiff Company is limited to C, E, and Defendant B, and Defendant B cannot exercise voting rights as a special interested party, so Defendant B and E cannot satisfy the intention and the quorum, unless Defendant B and E do not agree with the board of directors. Since C did not attend the board of directors meeting because it did not receive a notice for convening the board of directors, it did not have a valid board of directors resolution
However, in this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the board of directors did not call a notice to the board of directors, among three directors of the Plaintiff company, the board of directors with special interests is unable to exercise voting rights at the board of directors, but are included in the number of directors forming the basis for calculating the quorum (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu22698, Apr. 14, 1992). In this case, where there is no evidence to acknowledge that the board of directors did not call a notice to the board of directors, if the board of directors was present at the meeting of the Plaintiff company and the Defendant B, two of the three directors were present at the meeting of the majority and met the requirements for attendance, and even if the Defendant B excluded the voting rights exercised, the resolution is lawful and valid with the consent of the majority of E, the only part of the directors
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that differs from this premise is without merit.
3. If so, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate with this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.