공정증서원본불실기재등
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The offense of defaulting on the original copy of a process deed shall be established in cases where a false report is made with respect to the public official so that the original copy of the process deed may be recorded therein;
If there is any defect falling under the invalidation even if there is no or external existence of the original of the process deed, such entry constitutes an omission.
However, there exists objective existence of the mentioned matters or the underlying legal act, and in the case of a defect that is the reason for cancellation, as long as the statement is recorded in the original copy before cancellation, such statement does not constitute a false entry of the original copy of the fair deed (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4012, Sept. 24, 2004). Meanwhile, unlike one company that owns a total share, if the ownership of shares is substantially divided, if the minutes of the general meeting are falsely prepared as if the resolution was made without the actual convocation procedure and resolution procedure, as if the ownership of shares was actually divided, as if the resolution of the general meeting was made without going through the actual convocation procedure and resolution procedure, even if one of the total shares is the majority of the shares and the minutes of the general meeting are deemed to have been prepared by the controlling shareholder, the resolution of the general meeting is deemed to have been nonexistent (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do73020, Feb. 22, 2007).
A. The first instance court determined that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant owned all the shares of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and entrusted 30% of them to D.
B. The lower court also held that the Defendant did not undergo a resolution of the board of directors in the process of holding a temporary general meeting of shareholders on August 7, 2015, and that the Defendant held shares of 30% on the shareholder list pursuant to the articles of incorporation.