logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.01.25 2018가합52839
분할합병무효 청구의 소
Text

1. The business of Defendant B Co., Ltd. on November 27, 2017, based on a merger agreement concluded between Defendants on October 23, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff is Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”).

(2) On October 23, 2017, Defendant C entered into a merger agreement with Defendant C to divide the part of the electrical construction business with Defendant B’s company (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and to incorporate the said part, and completed the registration of the merger by split-off on November 27, 2017 (hereinafter “merger by split-merger”) after obtaining approval from the board of directors and the general meeting of shareholders of the Defendants.

3) At the time of the instant merger by split-merger, Defendant B did not separately notify the obligees known to the obligees at the time of the instant merger by split-merger of this case.

B. Article 530-11(2) and Article 527-5(1) of the Commercial Act provides that the procedures for protecting creditors of both parties to a merger through division shall be followed when the merger through division is conducted.

Accordingly, both parties to the merger and division shall make a public notice within two weeks from the date of a resolution of approval of the general meeting of shareholders that if they have objection to the merger, they shall submit the merger to the creditors within a period of not less than one month and notify the creditors who

In light of the fact that the merger by split brings about a significant change in the company's property, which is the security of the claim from the creditor of the company, and may have considerable difficulty in collecting the claim due to the merger by split, the merger by split shall be deemed null and void, unless there are special circumstances where the creditor protection procedures provided in the Commercial Act are not implemented in the procedure of merger by split,

As seen earlier, the Defendants did not properly implement the creditor protection procedure under the Commercial Act, such as the peremptory procedure against the obligees in the merger after division of this case.

arrow