[귀속재산임대차계약취소][집10(1)행,040]
The Commercial Act shall apply to the dissolution of a corporation reverted to shares.
In the case of a stock company with stocks reverted to two-thirds or more of the stocks, the Administrator of the Agency may dissolve the stock company with the agreement of the head of the division having jurisdiction over the affairs of the property, and divide and sell the property owned by the stock company, and the dissolution to divide and sell the property shall be governed by Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Act and the dissolution provisions of the Commercial Act shall not
Article 2 (3), the proviso to Article 8 (4), Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction;
Korea New Warehouse Corporation (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
The Director General of Gyeonggi-do
Seoul High Court Decision 4294Ra12 delivered on August 16, 1961
The appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds for appeal on the current appointment of attorney-at-law are as shown in the attached Form.
With respect to the first and second grounds for appeal, the company established in Korea prior to August 9, 1945 does not belong to the company's property, but shares shall belong to the company. In this case, the Commercial Act shall apply to the company unless otherwise stipulated in the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the company belongs. It is like theory, and in the proviso of Article 8 (4) of the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the company belongs, if the company's property is not in operation, it may dissolve the company and sell its property to the company, but it shall not apply the provisions on dissolution of the Commercial Act. In comparison with the above provisions of Article 16 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the company belongs, it is reasonable to interpret the provisions on dissolution of the Commercial Act to the effect that the provision on dissolution of the company shall not be applied to the case where the company's property belongs to the company, with an agreement with the Minister for Affairs to which the company belongs, and it shall not be subject to dissolution of the company's property under the premise that the provisions on dissolution of the Commercial Act shall not be applied to the Commercial Act.
For the third issue, the dissolution of Article 8 (4) proviso of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Corporation is prohibited from dissolution under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Sale of Property Belonging to the Corporation.
It was explained above that the dissolution under the Commercial Act is not excluded under the Commercial Act, and the original judgment is recognized that the above company continues to exist without dissolution by citing the evidence No. 5, the concept of dissolution under the Commercial Act in dissolution and the concept of dissolution under the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the original judgment belongs, but if compared with the evidence No. 5, the purpose of the dissolution under the Commercial Act is not to be a dissolution under the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the company belongs, but to the effect of the dissolution under the Commercial Act is not a dissolution under the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which the company belongs, and the concept of dissolution under the original judgment is a concept of dissolution under the Commercial Act
I explained above that the above stock company still continues to exist as to the fourth point, and it is apparent in the records that the withdrawal of the application for participation by the above stock company is evident, and therefore the act of lawsuit by participation by the above stock company's assistant becomes identical to the act of lawsuit by the above stock company's assistant regardless of the first point. Thus, under the independent legal opinion, there is no argument that denies the act of lawsuit by the above stock company on the premise that the above stock company is extinguished under the independent legal opinion, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Articles 40, 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-Ma-ri, Kim Jong-so, Kim Ho-so, Lee Ho-so and Lee Ho-young