회사에 관한 소송
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Around 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the medical specialist of the primary facts, D, and E, purchased the hospital site with each of the KRW 350 million around 2013, and newly constructed the hospital building, thereby jointly opening the hospital and jointly opening the hospital and establishing the company with a view to seeing benefits, such as reduction of tax, etc.
Accordingly, on February 13, 2014, the plaintiff, the defendant, D, and E established C (hereinafter "C") for the purpose of real estate leasing business, etc., and the real estate leasing business was changed to a limited company, as seen in the front and rear, without distinguishing before and after the change of organization; hereinafter "C") and purchased one parcel other than the F in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju in the name of joint investment, and newly constructed the building on that ground.
The plaintiff, the defendant, D, and E agreed to jointly operate a children hospital on April 14, 2014, and they leased two to five floors among the said new buildings from C and operated the "G children hospital".
The plaintiff, the defendant, D, and E hold 24,50 shares of 98,00 shares of equity (10,000 shares of 10,00 shares) as members of C, each of which is currently registered by the plaintiff, the defendant, D, E, the director, the defendant as the representative director, and the defendant's husband H as the auditor.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit
A. The instant lawsuit for which the Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the Defendant from the representative director C’s office against the Defendant is entitled to ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit constitutes a lawsuit for formation with the aim of forming a change in existing legal relations.
A lawsuit of formation may be brought only where the law expressly provides for the removal of a director, but Article 385(2) of the Commercial Act only provides for the removal of a director, and there is no other legal provision concerning the dismissal of a representative director.
In addition, since the representative director is based on the premise that he is a director, he/she shall be dismissed if there is an official misconduct.