[대표이사등직무집행정지가처분][공1994.8.1.(973),2085]
Whether the previous transferee of shares who occupies share certificates can exercise his/her rights as a shareholder although the stock transfer contract has been lawfully rescinded.
If a share transfer contract is legally rescinded, the former transferee loses his status as a shareholder of the corporation, so even if he occupies the share certificates of the corporation, it is not possible to exercise the rights as a shareholder.
Article 336 of the Commercial Act
Supreme Court Decision 89Meu5345 delivered on July 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1229) 93Da44913 delivered on June 28, 1994
Appellee-Appellee Law Firm, Attorney Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant
Appellant 1 and 2 others
Seoul High Court Decision 92Na16098 delivered on July 16, 1993
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.
The respondent's grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of appeal on the supplementary appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the submission period are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal).
The court below determined that the non-applicant 1 lawfully rescinded the share transfer contract between the non-applicant 2 and the non-applicant 3, who was delegated by shareholders of the Hyundai Distribution Co., Ltd. on Dec. 17, 1984 and the representative director of the same company who was delegated on Dec. 17, 1984. The court below determined that the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, etc.
As determined by the court below, if the above stock transfer contract was lawfully rescinded, the non-applicant medical corporation established committee of ○○○○○ Hospital established committee lost the status as a shareholder of Hyundai Distribution Co., Ltd.., the non-applicant medical corporation. Thus, even if the company's share certificates are possessed, the company's rights cannot be exercised as a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu5345, Jul. 11, 1989). The court below was just and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the above judgment of the court below is not contrary to the precedents of the party members
In addition, the theory that the court below's action that cited the petitioner's application of this case is against the Constitution is merely an independent opinion.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)