1. Scope of the provisions of Articles 45 and 46 of the former Civil Act;

2. Whether the provision on contribution acts by an incorporated foundation to a provisional director is also applicable to a director who is prohibited from performing the duties of director for a director who has not obtained approval from the Minister for door delivery or his appointment.

1. Article 45 and Article 46 of the former Civil Act provides that the so-called "no defense against others" cannot be set up against a corporation, its founder, its employee, or any other person than the director shall not be set up against a corporation, its founder, its employee, or its director, etc., and it is reasonable to interpret that the director, etc.

2. A director is selected by the Court at the request of an interested party or prosecutor when there is a reason stipulated in Article 56 of the former Civil Code with respect to a juristic person. Thus, even if there is a provision that no director has the approval of the Minister for Delivery and any registration of appointment, the said provision shall not apply to a director. In addition, in light of the awareness of Article 46 of the former Civil Code and the purport of Articles 120 and 121 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Act, it is reasonable to interpret that a director under Article 46 (1) 8 of the former Civil Code is not included in a director.

Articles 45, 46, and 56 of the former Civil Act; Article 120 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Act; Article 121 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant

Seoul District Court of the first instance (4288 Gu residents1620)

The original judgment shall be altered in parallel with each other.

On August 18, 288, the defendant confirmed that the board of directors of the Samin Institute, a foundation, held on August 18, 2288, passed a resolution to dismiss the defendant from office as a director of the foundation.

Plaintiff 4, 5, and 6's principal lawsuit shall be dismissed.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff et al.'s claim is dismissed. The plaintiff et al.'s claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff et al., and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The defendant et al.'s appeal is dismissed.

The method of proof of actual statement pay by both parties is that the plaintiff's legal representative recognizes Eul's second grade 4 and Eul's second grade 3 were the site, and since there is no registration of the appointment of director of the plaintiff, etc. in the competent court at the seat of the school which is the foundation in the defendant's legal representative, the defendant denies that the plaintiff, etc. of the foundation is the director of the foundation. Therefore, even if the plaintiff, etc. is appointed as the director of the foundation in the capacity of the director of the foundation, the claim by the plaintiff, etc. as the director of the foundation must be dismissed because the term of office expires as of November 16, 428, because the plaintiff, etc. was expired as of November 16, 428. Accordingly, the defendant, etc. stated that the main claim based on the existence of the qualification as director of the foundation is unlawful, and presented as evidence Eul's second grade 3 (resolution of the director's revocation), third grade (the meeting's urgent holding), and fourth grade (the meeting's holding of the board of directors), and citing evidence 1.

First of all, among the defendant's defenses on the part concerning plaintiffs 4, 5, and 6 of the above-mentioned party, three persons including the above-mentioned plaintiff 4, 5, and 6 such were not qualified as a party. Accordingly, since the plaintiff's main claim is unlawful and it cannot be easily dismissed, the defendant's claim for the establishment of director's director's or director's defense cannot be asserted against the plaintiff's non-party 4, 568's non-party 4, 568's non-party 568's non-party 4,288's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's term of office can be acknowledged as completed as of November 16, 4288's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 1.

The following facts are met with respect to the establishment of an incorporated foundation: (a) 1, 2, and 3, etc. have taken office as the director of the incorporated foundation on June 1, 4279 upon the authorization of the head of the KIG-gun, YI-U.S. on the establishment of the KIG-U.S. Foundation; (b) 1, 2, and 3, etc. have taken office as the director of the incorporated foundation on May 5, 286 with the authorization of the head of the KIG-U.S.; and (c) the defendant has no dispute over the withdrawal of the previous confession on April 3, 288 by the head of the KIG-U.S. Foundation; (d) the defendant's testimony as to the establishment of the incorporated foundation is not in conformity with the truth or due to mistake; (e) the defendant's testimony as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony and testimony as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony as to the resolution.

According to the act of contribution of the foundation foundation, the defendant argues that the board of directors of the plaintiff et al.'s assertion as to the plaintiff et al., although the board of directors was decided to convene the board of directors, the board of directors of the foundation foundation's assertion as to the plaintiff et al. was convened voluntarily, so although the resolution of the board of directors is invalid, according to Article 15 and Article 18 of the evidence No. 12 (contribution

In addition, although the plaintiff et al. appointed the defendant as a senior director of a corporation who is superior to the defendant, and the approval of the letter delivery minister was made until May 4, 290, the resolution of the board of directors for exhibition that dismissed the defendant before his term of office was made invalid by a contribution act. However, according to Articles 12 and 17 of Gap's evidence No. 12, the corporation permits the dismissal of the officer before his term of office. Thus, this argument is groundless.

In other words, the defendant is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff 4, 5, and 6 were appointed as a provisional director, but they cannot perform the duties of the director because the plaintiff et al. did not have the authorization of the delivery minister and the registration of appointment. Thus, the resolution of dismissal for the plaintiff et al. participating in the exhibition cannot be held as null and void, and the provisional director is selected by the court at the request of interested parties or prosecutor when there is a reason prescribed in Article 56 of the Civil Act with respect to the corporation. Thus, even if there is a provision with respect to the contribution act of the foundation, this provision does not apply to the provisional director, and it is reasonable to interpret that the so-called director is not included in the so-called director under Article 46 (1) 8 of the Civil Act in light of the provisions of Articles 46 and 121 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act. In other words, the defendant's argument is groundless. Despite the fact that the plaintiff et al. participating in the exhibition is not a director of the foundation, the plaintiff et al.

In light of the above reasoning, it is recognized that the board of directors of the Samin Institute, a foundation foundation, made a resolution to dismiss the defendant from the office of the director of the foundation foundation. However, according to Article 17 (4) of the evidence No. 12 (Contribution Act), which does not have any theory on the establishment of the parties concerned, the dismissal of the executive officers of the foundation must be approved by the head of the letter delivery department in addition to the resolution of the board of directors. Thus, the defendant is not dismissed from the office of the board of directors, and the principal lawsuit of the plaintiff No. 4, 5, and 6 is illegal. Thus, the judgment of the court below that has different conclusion should be accepted only within the scope of the letter of objection, and the defendant's principal lawsuit is unfair, and the defendant's principal lawsuit is partially justified. Therefore, the decision is made in accordance with Articles 385, 89, 96, and

Dock-shot (Presiding Judge)