beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 상주지원 2018.05.31 2017가합5040

주주총회결의무효 및 취소

Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' primary claims is dismissed.

2. A resolution made by the Defendant at a general meeting of shareholders on March 30, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company established for the purpose of the establishment and operation of tourist amusement facilities. The amount of one share price per the defendant's shares is KRW 10,000, the total number of shares to be issued by the defendant is KRW 2,000,000, and the shares issued by the defendant are common shares 813,090.

B. Plaintiff A is a shareholder holding 24,800 shares of the Defendant, and Plaintiff B is a shareholder holding 21,830 shares of the Defendant and an outside director of the Defendant who was appointed on March 27, 2015.

C. On March 30, 2017, the Defendant held a 14 regular general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter “instant general meeting of shareholders”) on March 30, 2017 and held a 256,250 votes (on the spot voting 3,030 votes, written voting 252,820 votes), opposing 151,720 votes (on the spot voting 142,310 votes, written voting 9,410 votes), invalid 1,880 votes (on the spot voting), among the total voting 40,480 votes (on the spot voting 3,890 votes, written voting 252,360 votes, written voting 360), opposing 151,720 votes (on the spot voting 142,310 votes, written voting 9,410 votes), invalid, 480 votes (on the spot voting), 410,480 votes (on the spot voting).

(hereinafter referred to as "the resolution of this case") d.

D On March 30, 2014, on the grounds that the former representative director was not elected even though his term of office was expired on March 30, 2017, the defendant's representative director was appointed as the defendant's representative director and the latter representative director was not elected.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, and Eul No. 3 (including Serials; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the resolution of this case contains the following defects, thus seeking a confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case, and seeking a revocation of the resolution of this case as preliminary ones.

The plaintiff A, who unfairly refused to exercise voting rights by proxy, delegated the exercise of voting rights to the shareholders' general meeting of this case by 1,348 shareholders holding 187,270 shares of the defendant.