부당이득금 반환
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The F shall bear the costs of retrial; and
The purport of the claim, appeal, and the purport of appeal.
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking restitution of unjust enrichment as Seoul Central District Court 2016Gahap9860, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on August 18, 2017.
B. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed by this Court No. 2017Na2050677, but this Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 1, 2018 on the ground that “F who filed an appeal on behalf of the Plaintiff has no Plaintiff’s power of representation.”
(hereinafter referred to as the "case subject to review") c.
The Plaintiff appealed to the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2018Da245450, but on September 13, 2018, the final appeal was dismissed on September 13, 2018. On September 17, 2018, the Plaintiff served the original copy of the judgment and became final and conclusive as it is.
2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. Since a general meeting for the appointment of the Plaintiff’s representative liquidator, etc. held on May 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant general meeting”) was convened at the request of 40% (322 persons), F, appointed as a representative liquidator at the said general meeting, has legitimate power of representation.
Nevertheless, the original decision did not render a decision on the contents of the request for convening a general meeting by 40% of the members.
B. The Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Kahap125, April 1, 2015, stating that “the Plaintiff shall not hold a general meeting for the resolution of the agenda item for the appointment of a representative liquidator and a liquidator on April 4, 2015 or May 2, 2015,” was null and void due to the lapse of the period, and thus, it does not go against the purport of the above provisional disposition order to appoint F as a representative liquidator at the instant general meeting convened by the representative liquidator on May 15, 2015.
Nevertheless, the judgment subject to a review is that theO convened the general meeting of this case beyond the scope of ordinary business affairs without the permission of the court.