In the case of a provisional disposition to suspend the execution of duties of a liquidator and a provisional disposition to appoint an acting person, a liquidator who is in a position inconsistent with the applicant by the applicant's own assertion shall be the respondent, and the company shall not be qualified as the respondent.

In the case of a provisional disposition to suspend the execution of duties of a liquidator and a provisional disposition to appoint an acting person, a liquidator who is in a position inconsistent with the applicant by the applicant's own assertion shall be the respondent, and the company shall not be qualified as the respondent.

Article 714(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 407 of the Commercial Act (Article 542)

Applicant 1 and one other

Taean Bank of Korea

Red Support in the First Instance, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3258 delivered on September 30, 1971

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the applicant's agent

The provisional disposition to determine a temporary position stipulated in Article 714(2) of the Civil Procedure Act is a person who has a legitimate interest in relation to the legal relationship in dispute by his claim itself due to the nature of such provisional disposition, and in such a case, the respondent is the respondent who is in conflict with the applicant by his claim itself (see Supreme Court Decision 1963, 2, 62Da820, Jun. 29, 1969). According to the records, the applicant was the liquidator of the company, and the applicant was the respondent. Although the above company did not hold a provisional shareholders' meeting on June 29, 1969, the non-applicant 1 dismissed the applicant and the non-applicant 2 and appointed the non-applicant 1 as the liquidator, as the liquidator appointed the non-applicant 1 as the liquidator, so the applicant appointed three liquidators of the provisional shareholders' meeting minutes and completed registration of modification to appoint the non-applicant 1 as the liquidator. Thus, the applicant appointed the respondent at the above general meeting of the liquidator's resolution to nullify the above liquidator's resolution, but requested the liquidator's appointment.

According to the facts alleged by the above applicants, those who have legitimate interest in claiming invalidation of each of the above resolutions or those who are entitled to be the respondent can be deemed to have been a liquidator, who is in conflict with the applicants, by the applicant's own assertion, and therefore, the non-applicant 1 should be the respondent in this case and the non-applicant 1 should be the respondent, but the defendant company shall not be the respondent and the defendant company shall not be the respondent. Thus, the judgment with the above purport is just and there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the eligibility of the parties, and therefore, they shall not be admitted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)