beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4-1 to 3, Gap evidence Nos. 6, and 7 may be admitted, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:
The plaintiff is a stock company engaged in the manufacturing business of electrical and electronic parts and wholesale and retail business, and it was established and operated as one practically, and C was killed by E, which was the head of the plaintiff's planning office as of February 11, 2010.
B. After that, the Defendant, a sentence C, was appointed as the Plaintiff’s inside director on March 23, 2010, but D, a wife of the network C, filed a provisional disposition against the Defendant, etc. seeking a suspension of the Defendant’s performance of duties as the Defendant’s director under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2010Kahap61, and the said court rendered a provisional disposition order to suspend the Defendant’s performance of duties as the Defendant’s inside director on May 28, 2010. The Defendant was appointed as the Plaintiff’s representative director on May 31, 2010, but D applied against the Defendant for a provisional disposition to suspend the performance of duties as the Defendant’s representative director on March 7, 2011.
C. D filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for confirmation of invalidity of the general meeting of shareholders and the resolution of board of directors, as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch of 2010Kahap2500, and on May 12, 2011, the said court rendered a judgment that confirmed the absence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders as of March 23, 2010 by the Plaintiff who appointed the Defendant as a director, and that the resolution of the board of directors as of May 31, 2010 by the Plaintiff who appointed the Defendant as the representative director is null and void. The said judgment was appealed by the Seoul High Court of 2011Na41873 against the Plaintiff (the Defendant participated as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor), but the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 11, 201.
D On April 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Plaintiff’s internal director, and on May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Plaintiff.