대표이사 및 사내이사 지위 부존재확인
1. We confirm that the Defendant’s Intervenor is not in the Defendant’s representative director and in-house director position.
2...
1. Facts that he/she has no dispute;
A. The Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells clothes, and the Plaintiff is a shareholder and auditor of the Defendant, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who was appointed as the Defendant’s representative director and in-house director on September 11, 2014.
B. On October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff received a decision on a provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties by a representative director and an internal director (Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Kahap627) against the Intervenor, and on October 23, 2015, D was appointed as the Intervenor’s acting representative.
C. On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained a decision to permit the convocation of the general meeting of shareholders (Seoul Eastern District Court 2015 Gohap1013) from among five shareholders at the Defendant’s temporary general meeting held on December 11, 2015, with the attendance of five (168,000 shares, among the total number of 200,00 shares issued) from among the six shareholders, and with the consent of the attendance of five (168,00 shares, among the total number of shares issued), the Plaintiff passed a resolution to dismiss the Intervenor’s representative director and internal director.
On the other hand, the provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties was revoked on April 10, 2017 on the ground that the plaintiff did not submit a document evidencing that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit within the period specified in the order to file a lawsuit.
(Seoul Eastern District Court 2017Kahap5). After July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff again received a decision on a provisional disposition to suspend the performance of duties of a representative director and an in-house director (Seoul East East District Court 2017Kahap10151) against the Intervenor, and on July 24, 2017, H was appointed as the Intervenor’s acting representative.
2. According to the judgment and the above facts of the conclusion, it is reasonable to view that the intervenor was legally and effectively dismissed through the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of this case. Since the defendant and the intervenor dispute the following grounds, there is a benefit to seek confirmation as the plaintiff.
The defendant and the intervenor (i) while the intervenor was confined to the detention house, D, who was the intervenor's acting representative at the time, dismissed the intervenor through the shareholders' general meeting of this case.