[1] In case where the decision of non-contentious case is revoked, whether the retroactive effect is recognized (negative with qualification)

[2] The validity of the resolution of the general meeting held by the temporary directors appointed by the court before revoking the decision of appointment (effective)

[1] Even if a decision on a non-contentious case that has become effective as a non-contentious case is revoked ex post, the retroactive effect is not recognized unless there are special circumstances, in light of the original nature of the non-contentious case aimed at forming a legal relationship.

[2] A resolution at the general meeting held by a provisional director who was appointed by the court’s decision of appointment before cancellation of the decision of appointment shall not be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the decision of appointment at the general meeting was cancelled later. Unless there are special circumstances, a resolution at the general meeting held by a director appointed by the general meeting shall also be deemed null and void

[1] Article 19 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act / [2] Articles 63 and 70 of the Civil Act

Attorney Choi Chang-chul (Attorney Choi Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korean Physical Welfare Association for Disabled Persons (Attorney Park Yong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

It is confirmed that each special meeting resolution of the defendant's physical welfare association for the disabled (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant corporation") is null and void, as shown in the attached list of the attached list of the defendant's physical welfare association for the disabled (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant corporation"), and on March 31, 1998.

1. Determination on this safety defense

With respect to the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution on the extraordinary general meeting of the Defendant Corporation by asserting that the Plaintiff has the status of a director as a member of the Defendant Corporation, the Defendant Corporation resigned from the temporary director on March 27, 1995, and thereafter submitted a letter of intent that the Plaintiff would not participate in the business of the Defendant Corporation on June 24, 1996, and thereafter, did not have any interest in the Defendant Corporation until now, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no interest in confirmation.

The plaintiff was a member of the defendant corporation by June 24, 1996, and the plaintiff is also recognized by the argument of the defendant corporation itself, and the plaintiff thereafter, barring any special circumstance such as the plaintiff's loss of membership of the defendant corporation, the plaintiff maintains the membership of the defendant corporation, and the statement of each letter (Evidence No. 3) stating that the plaintiff would not participate in the business of the defendant corporation alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lost the membership of the defendant corporation, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff is a member of the defendant corporation as a member of the defendant corporation, and therefore the above argument of the defendant corporation is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Facts of recognition

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 8-1, 9-2, and 12 of the evidence No. 8-1, 9-2.

(1) The Defendant corporation is a non-profit corporation established for the purpose of establishing a self-support base for physically disabled persons, and has a headquarters and 14 branch offices. The decision-making body has a general meeting and a board of directors, and there are one president, two vice presidents, 15 directors (including the president and the vice presidents), and two auditors. According to the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the Defendant corporation, the general meeting is comprised of ex officio representatives and representatives elected by each district council (Article 19 of the Articles of Incorporation), with the attendance of more than a majority of the incumbent representatives and with the consent of more than a majority of the representatives present, and if there is an equal number of representatives, the general meeting shall be governed by the chairperson (Article 20 of the Articles of Incorporation), and the general meeting shall pass a resolution (Article 17 of the Articles of Incorporation).

(2) On July 22, 1996, the East District Court decided to appoint 14 persons, including Nonparty Jae-ok, as temporary directors of Defendant Corporation upon the application for Kim Jae-ro’s consent, but revoked the decision on February 25, 1997 on the ground that the above Kim Dong-dong did not have the right to apply for the selection and appointment of temporary directors. However, on September 12, 1996, the temporary directors appointed by the above decision on the selection and appointment of temporary directors held an extraordinary general meeting on September 12, 1996 and held an extraordinary general meeting to select Nonparty Jae-ok as the president. Thereafter, on September 12, 1996, the directors appointed at the extraordinary general meeting held a general meeting on August 8, 197, elected Nonparty Lee Jae-ok as the president, and on March 31, 1998, appointed some of the above directors as the president with the permission of the Seoul Southern District Court to convene the above general meeting and dismissed Nonparty Jae-dong as the president.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the special meeting of September 12, 1996, which was held by the above Kim-ro motion without the right to apply for the appointment of provisional directors, was held by the temporary directors whose decision of appointment was revoked, and the resolution of the special meeting is unlawful, and the resolution of the special meeting of March 31, 1998 held by the president and the directors who were appointed by such unlawful resolution are also invalid.

In light of the inherent nature of non-contentious cases, even if a decision of a non-contentious case which has become effective ex post facto is revoked, the retroactive effect is not recognized, barring any special circumstances, in view of the inherent nature of the non-contentious case aimed at forming legal relations. Thus, a resolution of a general meeting held by a provisional director appointed by the court prior to the revocation of the decision of appointment by the court cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the decision of appointment by the court was revoked later, and as long as the resolution of the general meeting is not null and void as a matter of course, the resolution of the general meeting held by the director

(2) In other words, the Plaintiff again did not have the representatives of each district elected. In particular, the special general meeting of March 31, 1998, which was held on September 12, 1996, without giving a notice of convening a notice to the secretary general of the National Federation and the head of each Seoul and Daegu Branch, the Plaintiff asserts that the resolution of each of the above general meetings is null and void.

In accordance with the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, even if members of each district were not required to elect representatives and have them attend the general meeting, such resolution shall not be deemed null and void a year as long as the quorum and the quorum have been met based on the representatives who are members of the general meeting at the time of the above general meeting, and there is no evidence to prove that the resolution was not issued to the secretary general of the central association at the time of the above general meeting as of March 31, 1998 and the head of the Seoul and Daegu branch office at the time of the general meeting, and therefore the plaintiff'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Yong-sung (Presiding Judge)