손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 26, 2017 to March 8, 2018, and the following.
1. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents - The Plaintiff is an association that implements the housing reconstruction project for a housing complex on two parcels, and the Defendant is elected as a director on March 16, 2014.
Article 15(3) of the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides that “The term of office of an executive shall be three years from the date on which he/she is appointed, but he/she may be reappointed through a resolution of the
D, the president of the Plaintiff, around January 26, 2017, expressed the Plaintiff’s intention to resign, and continued to perform the duties of the president of the partnership, and submitted a notice of suspension of performing the duties of the president of the partnership to the Plaintiff on March 27, 2017, stating that he/she suspended his/her duties of the president of the partnership and transferred the duties to the acting president. -
D Around March 28, 2017, around March 28, 2017, the Defendant prepared a “written confirmation of acceptance and transfer of the affairs of the president of the partnership” with the content that it will take over and transfer the affairs of the president of the partnership. Around March 30, 2017, the Defendant reported the name of the corporate seal imprint, the corporate passbook, etc. to the Defendant. -
Accordingly, the Plaintiff delivered the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff is not a legitimate acting representative, and applied for a provisional disposition demanding the Plaintiff to enter into a contract or not to engage in financial transactions in the Plaintiff’s name as the president of the partnership (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition prohibiting interference with business”). This court decided May 20, 2017 that “D is unable to perform its duties on or around March 27, 2017.” The Defendant cannot be a legitimate acting representative due to the expiration of the term of office, and the Defendant determined that “E, among the directors of the Plaintiff, is a legitimate acting representative, according to the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation,” and that the said decision became final and conclusive.
In addition, Article 15 (2) of the articles of association of the Plaintiff Union against the Plaintiff is qualified as a candidate for partnership head.