Whether it can be a ground for requesting appointment as an inspector under Article 467(1) of the Commercial Act only with a vague and unsatisfy content that is specific and clearly indicated (negative)

Article 467(1) of the Commercial Act, which is the reason for requesting the appointment of an inspector, must clearly state the contents of “the misconduct related to the performance of duties, or material facts in violation of statutes or the articles of incorporation,” and it cannot be said that there is doubt that the contents of a report of settlement of accounts are consistent with the actual status of property.

Article 467 (1) of the Commercial Act

Attorney Kim Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Dong Preservation Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Order 84Ra47 Dated March 25, 1985

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Examining the order of the court below in light of related evidence, it is justified that the court below rejected the Re-Appellant's argument stated in (2), (3), and (4) without such proof, and there is no illegality that misleads the facts contrary to the rules of evidence as to the theory of the lawsuit. The part of the court below's explanation of the lawsuit against the above Claim 4 is nothing more than attached to the family judgment, and it does not affect the result of the judgment even if it was erroneous. Thus, it is not reasonable to discuss this point.

In addition, the reason for requesting the appointment of an inspector under Article 467 (1) of the Commercial Act, "the misconduct related to the performance of duties, or grave facts in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation" should be clearly stated in detail, and the contents of the report of settlement of accounts cannot be considered as the reason simply because it is doubtful that the contents of the report of settlement of accounts coincide with the actual status of property, and even if the principal company of this case neglects the registration of retirement of the director resigned and does not appoint his successor, it does not constitute "serious facts" under Article 467 (1) of the Commercial Act. Thus, the court below's rejection of the second letter at the time of the second instance judgment of the court below in the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no argument in this regard.

On the other hand, it cannot be concluded that there was a fraudulent act in the course of business solely on the grounds that the principal company did not repay the loan or credit purchase price to the re-appellant or did not enter the above loan in the company account book. Thus, the second (1) of the second (2) of the court below's decision of the court below is without merit. The court's decision on this point is somewhat insufficient, but it is just in the conclusion that rejected the second (2)'s argument, and therefore

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed as it is not acceptable or acceptable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)