beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.28 2015나35919

총회비용

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the court's explanation of this case is to dismiss " May 22, 2006" of the first instance court No. 4 of the first instance court's decision as " May 25, 2006" and it is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except for the dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is to be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] The 4th to 5th to 10th of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

1) According to the facts acknowledged by the defendant's obligation to reimburse expenses, since the plaintiffs lawfully held the special meeting of this case by the defendant's authority to convene the special meeting of this case under the Act and the defendant's articles of incorporation, the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for holding the special meeting of this case shall be deemed to have been paid by the defendant instead of the expenses that the defendant should have spent. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the expenses to the plaintiff (the defendant is obligated to return the expenses of this case to the plaintiff, since the expenses for holding the special meeting of this case are caused by "a contract which becomes a partner's burden other than those stipulated in the budget" under Article 24 (3) 5 of the Act and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant can pay them only when the defendant's general meeting passes a resolution, but it cannot be deemed that the holding of the special meeting of this case is a conclusion of the contract stipulated in the above provisions of the law

Furthermore, the circumstance that the contents of the resolution of the special meeting of this case did not have an interest in the defendant union or did not obtain the authorization of the competent authorities cannot be the reason for the defendant to refuse to bear the expenses.

(3) Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant’s above-mentioned 27,075,970 won, barring any special circumstance, shall be sentenced to the 6th judgment of the first instance court.