logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.09.05 2013가합4302
이사회결의부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

Basic Facts

피고는 아세아(亞細亞) 선교에 관련된 제반 학술적 연구의 수행과 아세아인(亞細亞人) 선교 교육의 지원을 목적으로 아세아 선교에 관련된 제반 학문을 연구하고, 국내국외의 기독교 대학 및 신학대학의 아세아인 교육을 지원하는 것을 사업 내용으로 하여 1977. 1. 17. 민법 제32조, 공익법인의 설립운영에 관한 법률(이하, ‘공익법인법’이라고 한다) 제4조에 따라 설립된 재단법인이다.

The directors of the original defendant were appointed by the plaintiff A, D, E, F (president), and G5, but the above directors were dead, resigned, or terminated as shown in the following table.

On November 7, 2007, 2007, Plaintiff A 1, the date on which the name taking office expires, and on November 7, 2007, Plaintiff D on November 7, 2007, Nov. 7, 2007, the Defendant, on November 7, 2007, adopted a resolution of the board of directors on July 28, 2005, on July 28, 2013, Plaintiff B, the director of the Seoul District Education Office, who was appointed as the director on December 19, 2005, at the board of directors’ meeting on December 19, 2005 (the director of the Seoul District Education Office, on December 19, 2005, who was appointed as the director of the board of directors on December 13, 2010; the director of the Seoul District Education Office following the resolution of the Plaintiff GFD on December 21, 2010.

In addition, on March 14, 2011, the Defendant held a board of directors meeting on 97 occasions at H, J, and I’s attendance, and passed a resolution to appoint K as a successor director of E, G as a successor director, and G as a successor director (hereinafter “instant resolution of the board of directors”) and the superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education approved the appointment of each of the above directors on March 24, 201.

M Educational Foundation and Plaintiff A filed a lawsuit against Defendant, H, I, J, K, and L by Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap74913 to confirm that each of the resolution of the board of directors of the instant case was null and void. The said court on November 24, 2011 did not recognize the right to take emergency measures against F who resigned on December 7, 2006.

arrow