Cases dismissed by an application for provisional disposition on account of its illegality;

1. The shareholder of a stock company is generally entitled to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity or absence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and therefore, it is interpreted that the application for provisional disposition accompanying it can also be filed, but the shareholder of such company means the actual shareholder who acquired the shares and paid the shares.

2. Unless there are special circumstances, a company is naturally dissolved due to the expiration of its existence period, and a resolution of dissolution or appointment of a liquidator at a general meeting of shareholders after the expiration of its existence period has no legal effect.

Article 517 of the Commercial Act, Article 519 of the Commercial Act

Notice of December 9, 1966, 66Ma516 (Supreme Court Decision 7919 Decided 7919, Supreme Court Decision 14No314 Decided 14, Decision 714(16)1094 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Applicant 1 and 2 others

Respondent

Gwangju District Court Decision Mapopo Court (78Kaka96)

The decision of the court of first instance and the court of first instance shall revoke the decision of February 21, 1978 between the applicant, etc. and the respondent with respect to the case of application for provisional disposition of suspension of execution of duties between the applicant, etc. and the respondent.

The above provisional disposition application by the applicant, etc. shall be dismissed.

Expenses incurred in filing an application shall be borne by the applicant, etc. in both the first and second instances.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (1).

With respect to the case of application for provisional disposition of suspension of the execution of duties between the applicant and the respondent of Gwangju District Court 78Ka45, the decision of provisional disposition rendered on February 21, 1978 shall be approved.

Expenses for application shall be borne by the respondent.

The above judgment and provisional execution declaration

(main purport of the application) Of the decision of provisional disposition of this case rendered by the Gwangju District Court on February 21, 1978, the part of the decision appointed by the non-party 1 as the liquidator of the non-party 2 corporation as the liquidator of the non-party 2 corporation is modified.

The judgment that the costs of the application shall be borne by the applicants in the first and second trials (the purport of preliminary application)

1. The registration of dissolution was completed on January 7, 1976 by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on December 30, 1975 for the non-party 2 corporation, the respondent and the non-party 3 as liquidator. The registration was completed on the same day on which the respondent and the non-party 3 as liquidator, and the above support was applied for the provisional disposition of suspending the execution of duties between the respondent and the non-party 3 as the respondent and the respondent and the non-party 3 as the liquidator. The respondent who was appointed as the liquidator by the resolution of the provisional general meeting of shareholders of the non-party 2 as of December 30, 1975 and the non-party 3 as the liquidator of the above company shall be suspended by the time when the execution of duties of the above company is declared a final and conclusive.

There is no dispute between the parties with respect to the fact that Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3 has made the provisional disposition order that the liquidator of the above company act on behalf of the non-party 1 during the period of suspension of the execution of his duties.

2. The reasons for the applicant's application for provisional disposition of this case are that the applicant filed a claim for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders against the non-party 2 corporation in Gwangju District Court 76 Gapo-Ga152, Gwangju District Court 76Gapo-Ga152, and on January 11, 1978, the applicant filed an appeal against the non-party 2 corporation. The assistant intervenor of the defendant non-party 2 corporation of this case also filed an appeal against the defendant's losing part of the case, and the above principal case is not finalized, and the non-party 1, the liquidator of the non-party 2 corporation as the liquidator of the non-party 2 corporation, is not able to perform his duties as the liquidator by the court of first instance, and the respondent is trying to arbitrarily execute the liquidation procedure of the non-party 2 corporation's property disposition of the non-party 2 corporation. Thus, the respondent's application for provisional disposition of this case can not be claimed as unlawful until the plaintiff's claim for provisional disposition of this case is executed.

On the other hand, the shareholders of a corporation have the interest of confirming the invalidity or non-existence of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders. Accordingly, it is possible to apply for provisional disposition accompanying it. However, since the shareholders refer to the actual shareholders who actually take over the shares and paid the share price, it is interpreted that the shareholders in this context refers to the actual shareholders who actually paid the share price. Thus, there is no legal basis for the applicant to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity or non-existence of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders of a non-party 2 corporation, i.e., the lawsuit claiming suspension of the execution of duties of the non-party 2 corporation and appointment of a representative of a general meeting of shareholders of the non-party 2 corporation, i.e., the lawsuit claiming confirmation of the absence of a resolution or non-existence of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders of the non-party 4.

Therefore, since the applicant cannot be deemed to have a legal relationship to be preserved by the provisional disposition of this case, the applicant's application for provisional disposition of this case is illegal because it does not meet the requirements of provisional disposition and thus dismissed (see Supreme Court Order 6Ma516, Dec. 9, 1966).

In addition, the non-applicant non-applicant 2 Co., Ltd. was established on March 25, 1936, and its period of existence is determined by the articles of incorporation as 30 years and completed registration thereof, and there is no dispute between the parties that there was no change in the articles of incorporation after the incorporation, and the above non-applicant 2 Co., Ltd. is naturally dissolved due to the expiration of the period of existence on March 25, 1966. Thus, the resolution of dissolution or the resolution of appointment of the liquidator at the time of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on December 30, 1975, the above period of existence of a special resolution for continuation of the company is far more than the above period of existence, and it cannot be deemed that the suspension of the execution of duties of the case against the respondent appointed as the liquidator and the application for appointment of a proxy for execution of duties cannot be deemed as being unlawful (it is obvious that the applicants lost the party members in the merits lawsuit on the grounds that there is no right to preserve them).

Therefore, the application for provisional disposition of this case cannot be dismissed in some appearance, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance on February 21, 1978 as to the case of provisional disposition for suspension of execution of duties between the applicant, etc. and the respondent, and the court of first instance revoked the decision on February 21, 1978 as to the case of provisional disposition for suspension of execution of duties between the applicant, etc. and the respondent. The application cost is borne by the applicant, etc. who has lost both the first and second trials, and attaching a declaration of provisional execution.

Judge Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)