2. B

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant among the total litigation costs is borne by the defendant, and the part arising from the supplementary participation by the defendant joining the defendant is borne by the defendant joining the defendant.

In a lawsuit seeking the non-existence or invalidity of a resolution of appointment of an officer of a general meeting of shareholders, or the revocation of such resolution, if the officers appointed by such resolution are no longer in the position of the officer, and if an officer appointed by a new resolution of the general meeting of shareholders has been elected and completed registration of appointment, then the new resolution of the general meeting of shareholders shall be deemed to have no interest in filing a lawsuit seeking the non-existence or invalidity of such resolution, or the revocation of such resolution, even though there is any defect in the resolution of appointment of an officer of a general meeting of shareholders in the procedure other than the defect of the general meeting which is called the general meeting of shareholders convened by an unentitled person, unless there are special circumstances such as the absence or invalidity due to the defect in the contents, or the revocation of such resolution (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da50427, Feb. 24, 195; 2008Da3221, Aug. 11, 200

According to the records, the defendant assistant intervenor, who is the representative director appointed by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of this case of the defendant company seeking the non-existence of the plaintiff or the invalidity or revocation thereof, has expired on March 27, 2015, which was after the date of the closing of argument in the court below. After that, the plaintiff A was elected as the representative director after the resolution of the new general meeting of shareholders held on March 30, 2015 and completed the registration of appointment thereof. The remaining officers appointed by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of this case are no longer in the position of executive officer for reasons such as the expiration of the term of office, etc., and then the new general meeting of shareholders

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders was nonexistent, invalidated, or revoked on March 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs had no interest in the lawsuit seeking nullification or revocation of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. Therefore, the lawsuit in this case was unlawful after the date of closing of argument in the lower court, and thus, the judgment of the lower court cannot be maintained. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the lower court is reversed. Since the Supreme Court is sufficient to directly render a judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit in this case is dismissed, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant out of the total costs of the lawsuit and the part arising from the supplementary participation of the Intervenor

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim In-young