Request for nullification of the resolution of appointment of the chief director of an incorporated foundation filed by the chief director of the incorporated foundation and the person who has entered into a contract to acquire the

A person who enters into a contract between the chief director and the chief director of an incorporated foundation to raise a purchase of real estate and any other rights owned by the incorporated foundation shall not be deemed to have a position to dispute the validity of the resolution on the appointment of the chief director or the approval of the relevant authorities with respect to the incorporated foundation, in addition to the fact that there is no direct contractual relationship with the incorporated foundation unless there is a transfer contract with regard to such management rights.

Article 47 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Respondent

Cheongju District Court of the first instance (85Ka26) Cheongju District Court

The petitioner's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The respondent shall not perform his duties as the president of the same legal entity until a lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity of the resolution of the board of directors made by the applicant on March 27, 1983 and a lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity of the approval of the appointment of the chief director on March 24, 1984 is finalized.

The court shall have an appropriate person designated by the court act on behalf of the chief director of the foundation.

The costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances shall be borne by the respondent.

On March 27, 1983, the respondent was appointed as the president of an incorporated foundation (name omitted) which is a telegraphic body of an incorporated foundation (name change of April 30, 1984; hereinafter the same shall apply) other than an application for non-application foundation on July 24, 1984, and the approval for the transfer of the office of incorporation was obtained from the Cheongbuk-do Governor on March 24, 1984, and the applicant is the president of an incorporated foundation at the time of receipt of the replacement approval, and the applicant is the president of the non-application foundation on June 15, 1983, and the proceeds of the operation rights including real estate and all other rights owned by the foundation between the respondent and the president of the non-application foundation who was the president of the non-application foundation at the time of June 15, 1983 shall be paid KRW 70 million,000,0000 per contract and KRW 820,000,000,000).

The facts alleged in this case are as follows.

In other words, the resolution of the appointment of the chief director on March 27, 1983, which is the premise for the approval of the appointment of the chief director to the respondent on March 24, 1984, is null and void because not the directors of the foundation other than the applicant, makes it the most possible for the respondent to make a resolution of the board of directors, but the respondent later transferred the basic property of the foundation other than the applicant to the applicant without legitimate resolution of the board of directors and approval of the competent agency, and the previous applicant to neglect his duties due to illegal misappropriation of the transfer proceeds and the investment funds of the company other than the applicant received from the applicant, etc. on November 1981, 1981, the purport of this case is that the applicant and the non-applicant foundation are in a position to take over the property and the operating rights of the foundation other than the applicant under the contract concluded with the respondent representing the non-applicant foundation, and thus, the applicant

However, as seen earlier, although the acquisition agreement at issue in this case concerns the purchase of the property owned by a foundation other than an application, it is not directly transferring the property owned by the foundation from the foundation other than the application to the applicant, but indirectly taking over the property and operation of the foundation by acquiring the management right from the applicant or the director, etc. of the foundation other than the application to the applicant under the premise that the foundation other than the application continues to exist with identity, and it is not indirectly taking over the property owned by the foundation (the disposal of the foundation other than the application for termination of contract should be permitted by the competent authority after the amendment of the articles of incorporation and the approval of the competent authority is the applicant without the approval of the transfer of the basic property from the foundation to the applicant (the above disposal agreement is merely invalid because it is related to the foundation other than the application, and the above disposal contract is concluded by the applicant as a natural person other than the applicant and the director of the board of directors and the auditor's own agreement to transfer the property owned by the non-applicant as a representative of the foundation without any dispute.

Therefore, as long as no contractual relationship exists between the applicant and the non-applicant and the non-applicant foundation foundation, the fact that there was a transfer contract on the right to operate the foundation foundation in question between the respondent and the remaining directors can enforce the liability for the implementation of the contract, it cannot be said that the applicant is in a position to dispute the resolution on the appointment of the respondent and the approval of the relevant authorities for the non-applicant foundation.

Therefore, under the premise that the applicant can seek confirmation of the invalidity of the resolution of the board of directors or the invalidity of the appointment approval against an incorporated foundation other than the applicant, the application of this case seeking a provisional disposition against the respondent in the purport of the application shall be dismissed without examining the remaining points, and therefore, the order of the court below that concluded is justifiable, and the applicant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing applicant.

For the judge's prior completion (Presiding Judge)