이사지위등 부존재확인의소
1. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the plaintiffs asserted in this court while appealed, are not significantly different from the contents claimed by the plaintiffs in the court of first instance, and even if all the evidence submitted to the court of first instance and this court are examined, it is justifiable to recognize and determine the facts
Therefore, this court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court's decision as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and it is so accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is, in addition to adding the judgment on the assertion that the plaintiffs added or emphasized by this court as stated in Paragraph 3 below.
2.At the fifth and sixth end of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added to the height of the part above:
Article 12(2) of the Civil Act provides that “The plaintiffs shall not exercise their authority to deal with emergency affairs of a director whose term is expired by applying mutatis mutandis Article 691 of the Civil Act because I is written only by document, but it shall not exercise their authority as the president, by applying mutatis mutandis Article 691 of the Civil Act at the time of the resolution of the first board of directors.” However, it shall be determined that I exercises its authority as the president pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Criminal Act, rather than by applying mutatis mutandis Article 691 of the Civil Act at the time of the resolution of the first board of directors. Since Article 12(2) of the Articles of
3. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiffs fully delegated the Defendant’s operation to the Dong-in P, and even though they knew well of the forgery of the minutes of the Defendant’s board of directors on August 14, 2013, the Plaintiffs actively cooperate with P to appoint U, V, and W as the Defendant’s director and commit an illegal act of having the above appointment of directors registered. As such, I is legitimate of the Defendant.