(a) The case holding that it is reasonable not to recognize the exercise of shareholders' rights in case where a stock company has paid in advance the amount equivalent to the price for stock transfer to some shareholders who desire to dispose of stocks, and has temporarily stored such stocks;

B. The case where shareholders agreed to make more investments in a certain amount in accordance with the number of shares held as a company operating fund, but some shareholders failed to comply with this, so that shareholders are entitled to exercise their voting rights by calculating the number of shares calculated in accordance with the ratio of shares invested by each shareholder as to the total amount of investment, and the principle

(c) Where capital has been additionally allocated to shareholders who have contributed to the establishment of a company, etc. by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and the principle of capital adequacy in a

A. In a case where the original shareholders of a stock company did not appear in the agreement to dispose of their shares only to other shareholders in principle, and some shareholders who wish to take over the shares did not appear in the agreement, and if the company actually renounced the exercise of shareholders' rights by receiving in advance the amount equivalent to the transfer price of shares from the above company, the company did not notify them of the convocation of the shareholders' general meeting, but did not dispose of their shares as non-voting shares at the time of the shareholders' general meeting, and excluded them from the calculation of the intention and the quorum, it is not reasonable to recognize the shareholders' rights to the above shareholders, considering that the above company's temporary custody of the shares constitutes the acquisition of the company's own shares, based on the appearance of the company's temporary custody of the shares

B. As a result of the subscription price for shares issued at the time of its incorporation, the company agreed to make more investments in a certain amount according to the number of shares held between shareholders because it is not adequate for the operating fund, but as a part of shareholders did not perform this, the number of shares calculated at the actual ratio of shares held by each shareholder to the total amount of investment, and the shareholders’ general meeting also made a resolution in accordance with the method of exercising voting rights, it is against the principle of equality of shareholders and Article 369(1) of the Commercial Act, inasmuch as a resolution has been made by the method of exercising voting rights, which is more restrictive to the shareholders’ voting

C. If a shareholder who has acquired 750 shares at the time of incorporation contributed to the establishment of a company, etc., and additionally allocates 750 shares free of charge to him/her by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and accordingly, he/she exercises shareholders' rights as a shareholder of 1,500 shares, this would not only contravene the principle of capital adequacy of the company as well as allow him/her to exercise voting rights more than the original voting rights.

(a) Article 341 of the Commercial Act; Article 369(1) and (c) Articles 305 and 421 of the Commercial Act;

Maximum extent and 2 others

Seoul Scrap Industry Company

Seoul District Court (88Gahap2186 delivered on July 2, 199)

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs shall revoke the judgment of the court below.

At the temporary shareholders meeting of the defendant company on January 12, 198, it is confirmed that there is no resolution to appoint each director, Kim Jong-sung as the auditor, and Kim Jong-sung as the auditor.

The judgment of the court of first and second instances that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the resolution of the above provisional shareholders' general meeting is revoked in preliminary cases. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On July 20, 1984, the defendant company convened a temporary general meeting of shareholders in order to resolve the matters of appointment of directors, auditors, and good faith, and held a general meeting of shareholders on December 29, 1987 and continued on January 12, 1988, on the ground that the company passed a resolution to appoint Nonparty 80,000, 5,000, 1 share price per share price, 40,000, total amount of shares issued at the time of incorporation, 200,000, total amount of capital stock price, and 200,000,000,000 won. The defendant company did not dispute over the establishment of the above director's shares as of December 18, 198, since it did not complete the resolution but passed a temporary general meeting of shareholders continued on January 12, 198.

(1) The Plaintiffs (1) continued to hold a temporary shareholders’ meeting held on December 29, 1987 for the purpose of the resolution of appointment and election of directors of the Defendant Company. The temporary shareholders’ meeting held on December 29, 1987 was terminated without legitimate resolution. The Plaintiffs unilaterally declared that the above temporary shareholders’ meeting continues to continue to exist on January 12, 198, the above temporary shareholders’ meeting was held on January 11, 1988, but the temporary shareholders’ meeting continued to exist at the office of the Defendant Company’s head office on December 29, 1987 without any opinion among the shareholders at the time, and thus, there was no resolution of the temporary shareholders’ general shareholders’ meeting held on January 12, 1988. Since the above temporary shareholders’ meeting held on January 12, 1988 did not constitute a new resolution of the temporary shareholders’ meeting held on the grounds of the lack of voting rights by the shareholders’ general shareholders’ general meeting. The shareholders’ meeting held on January 12, 19888.

살피건대, 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제3호증의 1(이사회 회의록, 을 제2호증의 1과 같다), 2, 3(각 임시주주총회 의사록, 을 제2호증의 2, 4와 같다), 을 제1호증, 15호증(각 주주명부), 을 제2호증의 3(소유주식 의결권산출표), 을 제24호증의 1, 을 제25호증의 1,2,3,4, 을 제27호증, 을 제29호증의 1, 2(각 진술조서)의 각 기재와 원심증인 곽노택, 이병모, 송평상, 당심증인 이동정의 각 증언(다만 위 곽노택의 증언 중 뒤에 믿지 않는 부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고회사의 설립당시 원시주주 52명이 각자 1주의 금액 금 5,000원인 주식 750주씩을 인수하기로 하였으나 실제로는 일부 주주들이 750주에 미달하거나 초과하는 주식을 인수함으로써 별지 제1목록기재와 같이 원시주주 52명이 그 해당주식수 만큼씩을 인수하여 피고회사의 설립한 사실, 그런데 그 주식인수대금 200,000,000원 만으로는 회사운영에 필요한 자금으로 부족하여 피고회사의 주주들은 주식 750주당 금 16,250,000원씩을 더 출자하기로 하여 대부분의 주주들은 그 추가출자의무를 이행하였으나 일부 주주들은 그 추가출자의무를 이행하지 아니하였는바, 1986.4.월경까지의 위 주식인수대금을 포함한 총 출자금액이 금 1,019,000,000원에 이르게 되자, 피고회사에서 위 총 출자금액에 대한 각자의 실제출자금액 비율로 의결권 산출수를 계산하여 각 주주들로 하여금 그 의결권 산출수에 따른 주주권을 행사하도록 하여 왔고 피고회사의 주주들도 그에 대하여 아무런 이의도 없었던 사실, 한편 피고회사의 원시주주들은 그 보유주식을 처분하고자 할 때에는 원칙적으로 피고회사의 다른 주주들에게만 이를 처분하기로 약정하였는데, 소외 김인규 등 15명의 주주(별지 제1목록기재 원시주주란 중 ○표를 한 주주 13명과 △표를 한 주주로부터 주식을 양수한 소외 김종구, 윤명자 등 2명)들은 그 보유주식 합계 10,875주(위 15명 중 소외 박용우는 375주, 나머지 14명은 750주씩)를 타에 처분하고자 하였으나 당장 이를 양수할 주주가 나타나지 아니하여 그들의 주식을 피고회사에 맡기고 피고회사로부터 그 주식양도대금에 상당하는 금액을 미리 받아감으로써 사실상 그 주주권행사를 포기하였고, 이에 따라 피고회사에서는 나머지 주주들의 도의 하에 주주총회시에 그들의 주식은 의결권 없는 주식으로 처리하여 왔으며, 주식의 양도양수로 인하여 1987.12월 및 1988.1월 현재의 피고회사의 주주명단 및 그 보유주식수 등은 별지 제2목록기재와 같은 사실, 이에 따라 피고회사에서는 1987.12.29.자 임시주주총회를 소집함에 있어서도 앞서 본 바와 같이 주주권행사를 포기한 주주 15명(보유주식수 합계 10,875주, 의결권산출수로는 10,993)을 제외한 나머지 주주 31명(보유주식수 합계 29,125주, 의결권 산출수로는 29,007)에게 그 소집통지를 마친 다음, 1987.12.29. 11:00경 주주권행사를 포기한 주주들을 제외한 나머지 주주 31명 전원(그 중 20명은 실제 참석하였고, 나머지 11명은 의결권행사를 위임하였다)의 참석하에 임시주주총회를 개최하여 이사, 감사의 선임 및 보선의 안건을 토의하다가 결론을 보지 못하게 되자 같은 날 22:45경 일부 주주들이 속행 동의를 함에 따라(당시 이에 반대하는 일부 주주들이 퇴장하였다)임시주주총회 의장이던 소외 이병모가 이에 찬성을 표시하는 주주들의 주식수가 주주권 행사를 포기한 주주들의 주식수를 제외한 나머지 주식수의 과반수에 달하는 것을 확인하고 속행을 찬성하는 주주들의 뜻을 받아들여 1988.1.12. 11:00 피고회사 본점사무실에서 위 임시주주총회를 속행한다고 선언하고 위 임시주주총회를 마친 사실, 그 후 1988.1.12. 11:00경 피고회사 본점사무실에서 위 임시주주총회를 속개하였는바, 당시 주주 22명(보유주식 합계 23,250주, 의결권산출수로는 23,668, 그 중 14명은 실제 참석하였고, 나머지 8명은 의결권행사를 위임하였다)이 참석하였으나 임시주주총회 의장인 위 이병모가 이사, 감사의 선임 및 보선에 관한 안건을 상정하자 이에 반대하는 원고들을 포함한 주주 9명(보유주식수 합계 6,750주, 의결권산출수로는 6,594)이 퇴장하여 회의장에 되돌아오지 아니하자, 같은 날 16:00경 위 임시주주총회에 참석한 나머지 주주 13명(실제로 참석한 소외 윤영학, 이동정, 이병모, 김영회, 장부상 및 의결권행사를 위 윤영학 등에게 위임한 소외 박성필, 김종구, 김선평, 김용귀, 김기희, 유영숙, 김태일, 송선택, 그들의 보유주식수 합계 16,500주, 의결권산출수로는 17,074)이 위 의결권산출수에 따른 의결권을 행사하여 위 주주권행사를 포기한 주주들의 의결권산출수를 제외한 나머지 총 의결권산출수 29,007 중 과반수에 해당하는 17,074의 찬성이 있다 하여 앞서 본 바와 같은 이사 및 감사의 선임결의를 한 사실, 그런데

Around July 21, 1986, the non-party company, a shareholder of the defendant company, accepted 750 shares at the time of the incorporation of the defendant company, and thereafter invested 16,250,000 won in additional shares. Around July 21, 1986, it decided to additionally allocate 750 shares per share at the temporary shareholders' meeting of the defendant company to recognize 20,000 won as additional shares and its investment amount was 20,000 won. Accordingly, the above transfer period was 1,50 shares at the time of the resolution of the temporary shareholders' meeting of January 12, 198, and 1,570 shares at the above time of the above provisional shareholders' meeting, but the defendant company did not adopt a new resolution of increase in the capital other than the shares issued at the time of incorporation, and the above transfer period was 16,500 won with the above additional shares paid at the above 750 shares of the defendant company (the above transfer period was 197,2000 shares each of the above opinion of the defendant's.

In light of the above facts, 15 shareholders were to dispose of the above 0 shares of the Defendant Company’s 10 shareholders at the above 0th shareholders’ general shareholders’ meeting with the exception of the above 0th shareholders’ shares and the above 0th shareholders’ shares were to be held at the above 0th shareholders’ general shareholders’ meeting. However, since the 15th shareholders’ shares were not held at the above 0th shareholders’ general shareholders’ meeting and the above 0th general shareholders’ meeting were to be held at the 0th general shareholders’ meeting with the exception of the above 0th general shareholders’ shares, the Defendant Company did not give notice on the issuance of the 10th general shareholders’ shares, and the remaining 0th general shareholders’ shares were to be held at the 0th general shareholders’ meeting with the exception of the above 0th general shareholders’ shares shares, and thus, the 10th general shareholders’ shares were not held at the time of the above 0th general shareholders’ meeting and the remaining 9th general shareholders’ shares were to be held.

The resolution of the temporary general meeting of shareholders dated January 12, 198 is a violation of the principle of capital adequacy of a stock company, and its method of resolution is more than the original voting right. Thus, the resolution of the temporary general meeting of shareholders as of January 12, 198 is defective as the above (3) and (4) is the reason for cancellation of the resolution.

However, the number of shares held by 13 shareholders who agreed to the above resolution of appointment of directors and auditors at the above provisional shareholders' meeting on January 12, 198 reaches 15,750 shares even if 16,50 shares were excluded from 750 shares per share without consideration of the above (4). This portion of the total number of shares issued by the defendant company is 40,000 shares, the remaining 29,125 shares (the above 29,125 shares shall be deemed to be the total number of shares as the basis of the quorum of the above resolution) excluding 10,875 shares of the shareholders who renounced the exercise of shareholders' rights as seen above, as seen in the above 40,00 shares, and it appears that the above resolution was valid even if it did not affect the above resolution, and that the above method of resolution did not affect the above 180 shares' equity shares at the above general shareholders' meeting, and it appears that it was inappropriate for the shareholders to exercise the above resolution of 1819, including the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case seeking the revocation of the resolution of the provisional shareholders' meeting as of January 12, 198 are all with merit, and the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as of January 12, 198, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

Judges Lee Il-young (Presiding Judge)