1. Meaning of the representative director of a stock company;

2. Validity of judicial reconciliation, including provisions concerning reconciliation in violation of mandatory provisions;

1. Public notice of the representative director is null and void if the representative director issues the share certificates in his name because he speaks that the representative director is unable to execute his business due to a new disease or long-term overseas travel, etc., in the provisions of the articles of incorporation of a stock company which the managing director stands on his behalf; and

2. When a judicial compromise takes place, and the protocol is entered in the protocol, that protocol has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment, so even though its content is contrary to the mandatory law, the parties can seek correction only by the method of a retrial unless there is a ground for the bound invalidation of the judgment. Accordingly, the parties cannot make any assertion contrary to the purport of the compromise without recourse.

Articles 355 and 356 of the Commercial Act; Articles 206 and 431 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Da1268 delivered on April 18, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 7222Da1022 delivered on February 15, 1962, Supreme Court Decision 4294DaDa1268 delivered on April 18, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 696Da1066 delivered on April 16, 196, Supreme Court Decision 206Da1666 delivered on April 14, 196)

Plaintiff

Joint Books Printing Corporation

Seoul District Court of First Instance (66A12915)

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1812 delivered on March 10, 1970

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit after the appellate trial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's amendment to the purport of the claim in the trial.

(1) A resolution of appointing the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 at a special general meeting of shareholders held by the Defendant Company on January 4, 1958 as the auditor, Nonparty 7 as the auditor, and the Plaintiff as the representative director.

(2) At the temporary general meeting of shareholders of the defendant company on March 5, 1959, the director who is the representative director is dismissed, and the non-party 8 is a director and the non-party 9 is appointed respectively as the auditor.

(3) A resolution to appoint Nonparty 6 as representative director at the board of directors of the Defendant Company on October 30, 1959

(4) A resolution of appointing Nonparty 9 as auditor at the temporary shareholders’ meeting of the Defendant Company on December 26, 1962

(5) At the special shareholders' meeting of the defendant company dated June 25, 1963, the non-party 2, 3, 4, 6, and 10 shall be each director, and the non-party 6 shall be each appointed as the representative director.

(6) A resolution of appointing Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 2 as auditors at the ordinary shareholders’ meeting of the Defendant Company on August 31, 1964

(7) A resolution of appointing Nonparty 11, 12, and 13 as the auditor, Nonparty 14 as the auditor, and Nonparty 11 as the representative director at a special general meeting of shareholders held by the defendant company on November 10, 1965

(8) A resolution to appoint Nonparty 6 as a director at the temporary shareholders’ meeting of the Defendant Company on November 29, 1965

(9) A resolution to appoint Nonparty 6 as representative director at the board of directors of the defendant company on the same date

(10) A resolution of appointing Nonparty 3, 4, 6, 10, and 15 at a general meeting of shareholders held by the defendant company on November 15, 1967 as the auditor and Nonparty 16 as the representative director, respectively.

(11) On November 15, 1968, it is confirmed that there is no resolution appointing Nonparty 16 as auditor at the temporary general meeting of shareholders of the defendant company as auditor.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff has the same judgment as that stated in the purport of the claim, except where the original judgment was revoked.

As the company transferred 194.1. 26 to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party

그러므로 먼저 원고가 피고회사의 주주의 지위를 상실하였는지의 여부에 대하여 살피건대, 당사자간에 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 6호증의 1,2, 을 10호증의 1 내지 4, 을 15호증, 을 17호증의 1 내지 3, 을 22호증, 원심증인 소외 3의 증언에 의하여 각 그 성립이 인정되는 을 7호증의 1 내지 6, 을 8호증의 1 내지 6, 을 9호증, 을 12호증, 을 16호증의 1 내지 3, 을 19호증, 원고가 그 명하의 서명날인부분을 인정하므로서 그 진정성립이 추인되는 을 18호증의 1 내지 75(특히 배서란 부분의 각 기재)의 각 기재와 원심증인 소외 9, 원심 및 당심증인 소외 3의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 보면, 원고는 1957.11.25. 당시 자기주식 2,800주를 포함한 피고회사의 총주식 10,000주를 사실상 지배할 수 있는 지위에 있었는데 그중 6,000주(원고의 원시주식 2,300주, 소외 26, 27, 28명의 주식 각 1,000주, 소외 29명의 주식 500주, 소외 30명의 주식 200주)를 소외 동원무역주식회사의 지정인인 소외 2, 3, 6, 7, 31에게 금 3,000만환에 양도하고 그 대금을 수령함과 동시, 위 주식 6,000주에 대한 주식양도증서, 명의개서용 위임장등을 작성하여 위 양수인등에게 교부하였고, 동일자 피고회사의 이사회에서 위 주식양도 대한 승인 결의를 한 사실, 1959.2.16. 피고 회사의 이사회에서 소외 4를 전무이사로 선임하고 피고회사의 주권을 발행하기로 결의한 후, 대표이사인 원고에게 주권발행을 촉구하였으나, 원고가 이를 이행치 아니하므로 같은달 18 피고 회사의 정관(을 22호증), 제28조 2항의 "대표이사 유고시에는 전무이사가 대리한다"는 규정에 따라 전무이사인 소외 4가 피고 회사 취체역, 소외 4 명의로 피고회사의 주권을 발행한 사실, 원고는 1959.5.20.에 위 6,000주의 주식양도를 재확인하고 동일자로 원고의 원시주식 500주를 포함한 나머지 주식 4,000주를 금 2,000만환에, 그중 소외 6에게 3,000주, 소외 4, 20에게 각 500주를 양도하고 전시 소외 4발행의 피고회사 주권에 배서하여 위 양수인등에게 교부한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 주권발행 전의 주식의 양도는 회사에 대하여 그 효력이 없는 바, 위에서 인정하는 바와 같이 원고가 사실상 지배할 수 있는 피고회사의 전 주식 10,000주를, 전시와 같이 양도하였다 하더라도 그중6,000주를양도한 1957.11.25.에는 피고회사의 주권을 발행하기 전이였고, 그 후인 1959.2.18. 피고회사 전무이사 소외 4가 동 회사 정관 제28조 2항에 따라 동 회사의 주권을 발행하였다 하더라도 동 조항 소정의 "대표이사 유고시에는 전무이사가 대리한다"는 규정은 대표이사가 신병 또는 장기의 해외여행등으로 사무를 집행할 수 없는 경우를 말한다 할 것이고, 정당한 사유없이 대표이사의 사무(이 사건에 있어서는 주권발행)을 수행하지 않은 것과 같은 경우를 포함하지 않는다고 할 것이므로 소외 4가 그 명의로 피고회사의 주권을 발행한 것은 무효로서 피고회사는 아직껏 주권발행이 없는 상태라 할 것이니, 원고의 위 주식양도는 모두 주권발행 전의 주식양도로서 회사에 대하여 효력이 생기지 아니한다 할 것이니 유효한 주식양도를 주장하는 피고의 이점 주장은 이유없어 받아들일 수 없고, 다음 피고는 피고회사와 원고간에 1959.5.21. 또 피고회사와 원고를 제외한 나머지 원시주주등과 간에 1970.4.29. 각 재판상 화해가 성립하였으므로 동 화해조항의 기판력에 기하여 동 화해조항에 반대되는 주장을 할 수 없게 된 결과, 원고는 피고회사의 주주나 이사로서 또는 그가 지배할 수 있는 다른 원시주주등의 지위에서 본소를 제기할 하등의 권리보호 이익이 없다는 주장에 대하여 살피건대, 원고가 피고회사를 상대로 청구취지에 기재된 피고회사의 1959.3.5.자 임시주주총회 결의 부존재확인의 소를 서울지방법원에 제기하여 동 소송( 59가967 )이 동 법원에 계속중, 동년 5.21. 원·피고사이에 (1) 원고는 1957.11.25. 피고회사의 주식 6,000주( 소외 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 명의의 주식)를 소외 동원무역주식회사의 지정인에게 금 3,000만환(구화)에 양도한 사실을 확인하고, 1959.5.21.자로 원고의 소유주식 3,000주(잔여주주, 소외 20분 500주, 소외 4분 500주)를 피고회사에 양도한다. (2) 1959.5.21. 현재 위 동원무역주식회사 지정인 5명의 주주가 참가하여 형성한 피고회사의 사무, 회의, 등기, 기타 일체는 적법행위로 확인하고 법률상으로나 사실상으로 원고는 피고회사로부터 이탈한다. (3) 피고회사는 원고에 대하여 금 2,000만환을 지급하되 1959.5.21. 금 500만환, 동년 5.30까지 금 1,000만환, 동년 6.5까지 금 500만환을 분할 지급한다.

When a defendant company violates the above obligations, the amount of five million won shall be deemed to be a penalty. However, when the plaintiff violates the above obligations, the defendant company shall withhold its payment. (4) The plaintiff confirmed that the total amount of obligations except for bank obligations among the obligations of the defendant company is not more than 120 million won and the liability for the remainder of the company shall be borne by the plaintiff. The defendant company shall be liable for the remainder of the company. (5) The court costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant company. (5) The fact that a settlement has been established in the form of a judicial settlement with the purport that the lawsuit is terminated by the above judicial settlement, and the fact that the plaintiff applied for the designation of a date again, but the judgment was finalized by the statement of evidence No. 2-2 (Final Certification) without dispute between the parties and that the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is, and in accordance with each of the records of reconciliation No. 31, No. 32 (Adjudication), No. 43, No. 445 (Protocol No. 5) without dispute for the establishment.

(a) Nonparty 6 becomes an applicant and Nonparty 17, 18, 19, and 22, the original shareholder, Nonparty 32, the deceased non-party 21’s property heir Nonparty 23, 24, and 25, etc., filed an application for settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit with the respondent on April 20, 1970, and Nonparty 18 filed an application for settlement prior to the filing of the lawsuit with the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court (1) on February 7, 1965, Nonparty 23, 24, and 25, the deceased non-party 21’s property heir, the deceased non-party 23, 25, and 200 shares of the above company, which were owned by the deceased non-party 21’s property heir, were the same day as the date of the settlement of the board of directors; the non-party 22 was the legitimate person’s own shares as the Respondent’s own shares as the Respondent’s own shares and the Respondent’s own shares as the above 16.

(b) On May 14, 1970, Nonparty 6 becomes the applicant and Nonparty 20 who is the original shareholder, filed an application for settlement prior to filing a lawsuit with the respondent, and (1) at the Seoul District Court of Civil and Security on May 14, 1970, the respondent confirmed that the Defendant Company’s shares 1,000 shares were reverted to the applicant from February 7, 1965 until then. (2) The respondent recognized that the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders and the board of directors of the Defendant Company is lawful and valid until then, and that the respondent is not

The Defendant Company was the Claimant and the Respondent was the Claimant and the Respondent was the Claimant, Nonparty 17, 18, 19, and 22’s administrator Nonparty 20, 32, the deceased Nonparty 21’s property heir Nonparty 23, 24, and 25, and the Respondent et al. applied for settlement prior to the filing of the lawsuit. On April 29, 1970, the Seoul Central District Court confirmed the validity of each resolution of the shareholders’ meeting and the board of directors’ meeting from the time of the incorporation of the Claimant (Defendant Company) to April 15, 1970, and the Respondent et al. did not exercise any authority as the Claimant’s shareholder. (2) The settlement cost is a judicial compromise that is to be borne by the Claimant, and each protocol of conciliation is written, and there is no evidence contrary thereto.

The plaintiff asserted that judicial compromise as of May 21, 1959 was cancelled by duress, but it is not believed to be a member of the party, and there is no evidence otherwise. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted as without merit.

The plaintiff's protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, and even if the contents of the protocol were to be violated, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff can seek correction only through a retrial unless there is any ground for invalidation of the ruling. However, considering each of the above provision, it is clear that the plaintiff, non-party 1, and non-party 6 recognize the transfer of shares before the issuance of share certificates as valid, and that the defendant company's acquisition of shares violates compulsory provisions such as pride, but it cannot be acknowledged that there is a ground for invalidation of the ruling. As such, the plaintiff and other original shareholders or the defendant company's non-party 4 did not assert the above legal status of the above settlement through a retrial, it cannot be argued that there is no other reason that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 did not exercise the above legal status as to the non-party 6 shareholders' own share transfer and the non-party 1's temporary resolution as to the non-party 1, as well as the above non-party 1's own share transfer and the non-party 1's own share transfer.

Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)