[잉여금][미간행]
The case holding that even if a union member's automatic expulsion ground occurred after a resolution of dissolution, members can seek distribution of the remaining assets in proportion to the contribution shares according to the method of liquidation stipulated in the resolution of dissolution.
Article 721 of the Civil Act
Daewoo Electronic Co., Ltd
Medical practitioner Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Spah, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Securities Exchange Stabilization Fund (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yellow-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na33648 Delivered on November 23, 2005
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor
A. In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's primary claim based on the status of the property at the time of delisting for the reasons stated in its holding is justified, and there is no violation of law as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.
B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination method and content are all justifiable. Therefore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing out such error cannot be accepted.
2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. According to the evidence adopted by the court below, if a listed company, which is a member of the defendant fund, loses its membership status due to the abolition of listing, it shall be automatically expelled. The defendant fund made a resolution of dissolution on April 30, 206 after the resolution of the general meeting of the members of the defendant fund, and the plaintiff made a resolution of dissolution on April 13, 2002, which was subsequent to the abolition of listing. Since the above rules stipulate the loss of membership status as a ground for automatic expulsion is likely to undermine the trust among the members and interfere with the pursuit of the purpose of the establishment of the defendant fund, it is reasonable to view it as a provision on the premise of the defendant's existence, and it is reasonable to view it as a provision on the premise of the defendant's existence. After the resolution of dissolution, in order to ensure the fair distribution of property, the above provisions cannot be applied as it is, and furthermore, it should be fair to secure the remaining status of the members as equal to the shares of the members after automatic expulsion, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a resolution of dissolution even after the cancellation of remaining property.
In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to expulsion of union members and distribution of residual property, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination that rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim for distribution of the Plaintiff’s remaining assets is against the good faith principle is acceptable. Therefore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal
3. 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 on the bench.
Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)