In addition, there is a lack of reason or omission in the incomplete hearing or the determination of evidence, and the original decision was reversed.

The reason why it is inappropriate for a director to exercise the right of director because of the loss of trust between the corporation and the director of the corporation is not limited to the case where the director illegally managed or disposed of the assets owned by the corporation, but also includes the case where the purpose of the corporation is significantly hindered due to the illegal or unfaithful act impeding the purpose of the corporation.

Article 412 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na14488 decided May 1, 200

Seoul High Court Order 69Ra16 dated April 3, 1969

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Re-appellant's agent's first ground for re-appellant's second ground for re-appellants and Kim Byung-su's disease

The court below held that if the resolution of the board of directors which appointed three directors (excluding the non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 5, non-party 6, and non-party 7) of the non-existence of such resolution is confirmed to be non-existence of a lawsuit for confirmation of the absence of such resolution at the request of the said Defendants, the court below held that the two directors (non-party 8, non-party 9, non-party 3, non-party 10, non-party 11, non-party 12, and non-party 13) are extremely inappropriate for the former directors to continue the business of the relevant corporation even after the expiration of their term of office, and it is not clear that the right to appoint the director was infringed on by the decision of the court of first instance on the non-existence of provisional directors, and therefore, the non-party 2 did not have any right to appeal under the premise that the non-party 3's right to appeal is not unlawful.

Judgment on the fourth ground for reappeal:

The Re-Appellant's summary of the ground for appeal for the appointment of a director of the same clan is not that of the Re-Appellant, as stipulated in the articles of incorporation (Evidence No. 8), if the Re-Appellant's property was disposed of for the above reasons, it would interfere with the Re-Appellant's deliberation and disposition of the non-performing's property, and thus, it would interfere with the Re-Appellant's conclusion that the non-Confidence's property was not an unlawful property management of the above directors' property during the term of office, and thus, it would interfere with the Re-Appellant's non-Confidence's deliberation and disposition of the non-performing's property, and thus, it would interfere with the Re-Appellant's conclusion that the above non-Confidence's property was not an unlawful property management of the directors' property, and thus, it would interfere with the Re-Appellant's conclusion that the above non-Confidence's property was not an unlawful property management of the directors' property of the same clan, and it would not interfere with the Re-Appellant's new property management of the corporation's property.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the remaining grounds of reappeal.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong Do-won Nababri