손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing the same as it is in accordance with the main sentence
However, the following judgments are added to the argument that the plaintiff emphasized or added in this Court.
2. Additional determination
A. The shareholders of the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's shareholders agree to allocate public buses in the order of the scrapping date first returned to the shareholders' general meeting held in 1998, and the defendant's representative director is obligated to execute the resolution of the above shareholders' general meeting.
However, around September 2008, the representative director I of the defendant was the order of allocating the public bus to the plaintiff, and the defendant refused to allocate the public bus through the illegal supporting and opposing voting procedure, so the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff's damage along with I representative director I.
B. The written confirmation of facts in Gap evidence Nos. 29, 30 (including each number), alone, is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders asserted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(1) The Plaintiff asserted in the appellate brief that the above resolution of the general meeting of shareholders was held as the presence of the representative director in 196, and submitted the above confirmation document prepared by the shareholders and bus officers as evidence to support it, and subsequently, changed the assertion that the above resolution of the general meeting of shareholders was made in 1998. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the voting procedure for the pros and cons is unlawful is based on the premise that the above resolution of the general meeting of shareholders exists, and therefore, without any reason, is without merit.
In addition, even if the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as asserted by the plaintiff exists, such resolution has a direct in personam effect between the plaintiff and the defendant who was a bus engineer and the defendant, or the defendant has a resolution of the board of directors or a vote of the shareholders different from such resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.