In its explanation of its reasoning, the first instance court, which accepted the judgment by the original judgment, determined that the respondent's defense that the subject matter of the sale collateral contract is the Respondent's property, and the above sale collateral contract was null and void at the time of conclusion of the above sale collateral contract. However, even if the subject matter of the sale collateral contract is deemed important property of the Respondent, it cannot be viewed that the Respondent must go through the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of the Respondent, unless there are special circumstances, so there is no evidence to affirm the above special circumstances. However, as pointed out in the above reasoning explanation, the Respondent defense that the subject matter of this lawsuit is the exclusive property of the Respondent, unless there are special circumstances, cannot continue to exist the whole or essential part of the business of the Respondent, and this conclusion constitutes a case where the Respondent needs a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of the Respondent pursuant to Article 245 of the current Commercial Act, and therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed as to the interpretation and application of Article 245 subparagraph 1 of the current Commercial Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)