회사에 관한 소송
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that the plaintiff's name, "B," "B," "B," and the defendant's representative director's name, "A," "after affixing the plaintiff's personal seal," "after affixing the plaintiff's name, "B,"" and the plaintiff's assertion in the trial of the court of first instance is identical to the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case's additional determination as to the contents claimed by the plaintiff in the trial of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
The judgment of the court of first instance is deemed justifiable even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was neglected to appear in the trial). Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion of additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, this constitutes a contract unfavorable to the Defendant, which constitutes a director’s own trade under Article 398 of the Commercial Act, as it constitutes a contract unfavorable to the Defendant, which was the only internal director of the Defendant.
Judgment
Article 398 of the Commercial Act provides that a director shall obtain the approval of the board of directors in connection with a transaction between a director and a company. The purpose of the provision is to prevent a director from pursuing his own interest and causing damage to the company and a third party by making a direct transaction with the company or a transaction between the company and a third party for his own interest. Thus, in light of the purport of the provision, a person who may assert that a transaction between a director and a company is null and void on the ground that the transaction between a director and a company violates Article 398 of the Commercial Act is limited to the company, and barring any special circumstance, a party to the transaction or a third party shall not be allowed to assert that the transaction is null
(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da67651 Decided December 27, 2012, see the foregoing.