In the case of a so-called one company, the validity of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders without undergoing the procedure

In the case of a stock company that has become one person, the resolution shall be adopted according to the intention of the shareholder in the case of a stock company that has become one person, and the procedure of convening the general meeting of shareholders is not required separately. Thus, as long as the company that was a non-party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party B by selling its stocks and business rights and transferring its stocks to the non-party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party Party

Articles 368 and 363 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1187,1188 delivered on September 20, 196 (Supreme Court Decision 2232DaDa141159 delivered on April 13, 197, Supreme Court Decision 63Da981 delivered on February 28, 1967 (Law No. 1041 and 1042 delivered on February 28, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 15Da160 delivered on July 15, 196, Supreme Court Decision 74Da1755 delivered on April 13, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 14Da1159 delivered on April 159, 200, Supreme Court Decision 368Da27369 delivered on April 26, 200, Supreme Court Decision 203Da15316 delivered on April 16, 200)

Plaintiff

Dok Transport Corporation

Daegu District Court of the first instance (75 Gohap59) support for racing (75 Gohap59)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On May 12, 1969, at a special general meeting of shareholders of the defendant company, the non-party 1 and 2, and the plaintiff and the non-party 3, respectively, dismissed the non-party 4, 5, 6, and the non-party 7, and on the same day, the board of directors confirms that there is no resolution to dismiss the non-party 1 as the representative director, to appoint the non-party 4 as the representative director, and to appoint the non-party 4 as the representative director on August 30, 1972.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

Around March 1968, the defendant company was formed as a company with a total of 5,00 shares of 5,00 shares established for the purpose of transportation business, such as taxi, etc., but its shares were all owned by the non-party 8. When it was operated on November 20, 1968 due to business difficulties, the non-party 1 becomes the purchaser of the shares issued in the registered name at the time, and the purchaser purchased all of the shares and operating rights of the company, and purchased the shares and operating rights of the company to the non-party 8, and the representative director on the same day, acquired the shares and operating rights of the company to the non-party 1, directors to the non-party 2, the plaintiff, and the auditor to the non-party 3 with the name of the non-party 500,000 shares and the auditor to the non-party 70,000 shares and the auditor's name of the company to the non-party 40,500,000 won.

The plaintiff's attorney took over the above non-party 8's shares under the name of the non-party 1 and assigned 1,50 shares to the non-party 1 as the representative director, the non-party 2's 50 shares and the non-party 3's 50 shares were assigned to the non-party 1 as directors and auditors, so the above company's 1 and the non-party 4's 1 and the non-party 4's 5's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 1's 9's 1's 1's 1's 1's 7's 1's 9's 1's 1's 9's 1's 1's 7's 1's 1's 1's 1's 7' 's 's 's 's '''''''''' 1's ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '1' ' ' ' '.

Therefore, in the case of one company with a single class of shares as above recognition, the resolution shall be made according to its shareholders' intent, and it is unnecessary to convene a general meeting. Thus, since the above company's existence of the non-party 11 company is sold its stocks and sales rights to the non-party 4 and delivered shares to the non-party 4 by the intention of Dong-in, so so long as the director and auditor become one of the non-party 4 and the director and auditor were reorganized according to the resolution of Dong-in, even if the plaintiff was the previous director, the plaintiff's claim for objection without being followed cannot be asserted for the invalidity of the reorganization of the above officer, which was lawful even if the plaintiff was the previous director, so the decision of the court below that the plaintiff's claim for objection should be dismissed unfairly and dismissed shall be revoked

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge) Kim Hun-Un