[2] The case holding that the affairs concerning supervision and orders necessary for supervision among the affairs of the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation constitute those delegated by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration to the head of the local government

[3] The method of convening a board of directors in a case where there is no separate provision on the procedure for convening a board of directors under the circumstance that a person with the authority to convene a board of directors cannot convene a board of directors

[2] The case holding that the affairs concerning supervision and orders necessary for supervision among the affairs of the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation constitute the affairs delegated by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration to the head of the local government

[3] Under the articles of incorporation of the Regional Credit Guarantee Foundation or the Foundation, there is no provision as to whether to convene a board of directors through any procedure when the chief director, who is the authority to convene the board of directors, is unable to convene the board of directors because he/she evades the convocation of the board of directors. In such a case, the convocation of the board of directors shall be conducted by the court following a judgment of suspension of the performance of duties and provisional disposition against the chief director's

2. A. A. In determining whether an administrative affairs required by the head of a local government are autonomous affairs or an agency’s delegated affairs, the head of a local government shall first consider the form and purport of the relevant statutes in order to determine whether the administrative affairs are affairs requiring uniform management throughout the country (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do30, Sept. 17, 199; 2001Do57, Nov. 27, 2001).

In the same purport, the court below acknowledged the facts, etc. as stated in its reasoning, and judged that the affairs of the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation, which are governed by the Regional Credit Guarantee Foundation Act and are under the approval and supervision of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration, and especially those of the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation, do not fall under the affairs of local governments, which are the inherent duties of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration, and are not the duties of local governments, and the defendant has the authority delegated by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration pursuant to the Regional Credit Guarantee Foundation Act, and does not have the authority to general supervision or supervision, and it does not have the authority to issue orders necessary for supervision

B. The court below, in principle, has the authority to audit and investigate administrative affairs of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council, and the authority to audit and investigate administrative affairs of the relevant local government is limited to the affairs of the relevant local government. However, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council may conduct an audit of administrative affairs except where the National Assembly has decided to directly audit the administrative affairs of the Foundation, but such exception is not recognized. The Seoul Special Metropolitan Council has decided to investigate the administrative affairs of the Foundation and requested the submission of local confirmation and documents on the overall affairs of the Foundation is not the affairs of the local government, but the state affairs belonging to the authority of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration. The materials requested by the Seoul Special Metropolitan Council to be submitted are irrelevant to the authority delegated by the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration, and most of the materials are irrelevant to the authority delegated by the defendant to investigate the administrative affairs under the Local Autonomy Act, and thus, the Foundation of this case is not an institution subject to investigation of administrative affairs under the Local Autonomy Act, and thus, it is proper to determine that the execution

C. The court below held that since the defendant's business instruction mainly aims to comply with the investigation of administrative affairs of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council, since the investigation of administrative affairs of the Foundation of this case by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council is unlawful as above, it is proper to determine that the plaintiff's refusal of such business instruction by the defendant cannot be deemed to violate the purpose of the establishment of the Foundation or to harm the reputation of the Foundation, and that there is no error as alleged in the

3. The articles of incorporation of the Regional Credit Guarantee Foundation or the Foundation of this case have no provision as to whether to convene a board of directors through any procedure when the president, who is the person having the authority to convene the board of directors, is unable to convene the board of directors due to evasion of the convocation of the board of directors. In such a case, the convocation of the board of directors is to be conducted by the court following the judgment of suspension of the performance of duties and provisional disposition, and appointment of acting directors

In the same regard, the court below is justified in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration ratified the convocation of the board of directors based on the right to supervise the affairs of Article 36 of the Regional Credit Guarantee Foundation Act, that the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration approved the convocation of the board of directors, and held the board of directors by designating a convocation agent. Accordingly, the dismissal disposition of this case pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors is unlawful on the ground of procedural defects, and that the plaintiff ratified the convocation of board

4. As long as the dismissal disposition of this case is deemed illegal as procedural defect as above, the determination of whether there was a deviation or abuse of discretion does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, we do not look at this part of the judgment below.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)