§ 374. The meaning of the whole or essential part of the business

The transfer of all or part of the business under Article 374 of the Commercial Act means a case in which the transfer brings about the discontinuation of the business activities of a company by simply transferring it without going through the difference in the value of the object to be transferred, or the transfer by separating it, thereby destroying a high level of value as an organic whole of the business and seriously affecting the operation of the company.

Article 374 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da820 delivered on July 23, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 803Da8033 delivered on July 23, 196, Supreme Court Decision 12Na51 delivered on July 23, 196, Supreme Court Decision 374(3)7

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Busan District Court (74 Gohap1748)

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) exempted the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from the Defendant’s obligation to repay the amount of KRW 20,000,000 to the Han-il Bank Co., Ltd., the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the procedures for the transfer of ownership based on the sale on May 25, 1974, and ordered

3. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) exempted the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from the Defendant’s obligation to repay the amount of KRW 100,000,000 to the Hanil Bank Co., Ltd., the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Table 2, and ordered the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to transfer the ownership on June 19, 1974.

4. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim is dismissed.

5. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff all of the costs of principal lawsuit and the costs of counterclaim through the first and second trials.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is entitled to a sentence of provisional execution as stated in the Disposition 2, 3, and 5 as the main claim, and the defendant is entitled to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 172,000,000 won and the amount of 5% per annum from the day following the service of the main claim to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances. The defendant (Counterclaim) is the counterclaim claim, and the defendant (Counterclaim) implements the procedure of cancellation registration of provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the purchase and sale promise of the Busan District Court on August 12, 1974, No. 34357, May 25, 1974, and the provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the purchase and sale promise of the attached list No. 33426, Jun. 20, 1974, and the registration of cancellation of provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the purchase and sale promise of the attached list No. 33426, Jun. 3, 1974.

The judgment that the costs of the counterclaim shall be borne by the counter defendant is sought.

Except where the original judgment is revoked, it is the same as the purport of the plaintiff's claim.

First, I will examine the claims of the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter only referred to as the plaintiff) on the principal lawsuit.

(1) On May 25, 1974, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the non-party 2, 30, 100 won for each of the above 00, 100, 100 won for each of the above 00, 100, 200, 100 won for each of the above 00, 200, 100 won for each of the above 00, 100, 300, 100 won for each of the above 00, 100, 100 won for each of the above 0, 100, 1000 won for each of the above 0, 200, 100 won for each of the above 0, 100, 1000 won for each of the above 0, 100, 300, 100, 200 won for the remaining 10,000 won for each of the above 10,005.

However, the defendant asserts that the above evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2 of the above evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2 are documents prepared in collusion with the plaintiff and the non-party No. 1 for the purpose of pretending to sell and purchase, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it except the testimony of the non-party No. 5 of the witness who was above the non-party No. 5

다음 피고는, 원고가 이건 별지 제1,2목록기재 부동산을 매수할 당시 소외 1은 피고회사의 정당한 대표이사가 아니었으며, 소외 1은 1974.5.3.자 피고회사 주주총회회의록을 허위작성하여 동일자 주주총회에서 자기가 피고회사 이사로 선출된 것같이 행세하고, 아울러 동일자로 피고회사 이사도 아닌 자들이 이사회를 개최하여 소외 1을 대표이사로 선출한 것같이 이사회회의록을 허위작성하여 동인이 피고회사의 대표이사인 것같이 등기를 자행하였다가 법원의 결정에 의해 그 직무집행이 정지된 자이니 피고회사의 대표이사자격이 없는 것이므로 가사 원고가 피고회사 대표이사를 잠칭하는 소외 1로부터 이건 부동산을 매수하였다고 하더라도 이는 무권리자와의 매매로서 피고회사에 대하여는 아무런 효력이 없는 것이라고 주장하는바 살피건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 2호증, 갑 8,9호증, 갑 14호증의 1,2, 을 1호증, 을 12호증의 1,2, 원심증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 그 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 4호증의 1의 각 기재내용과 위 증언 및 위 형사기록검증의 결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고회사는 와이샤스등 봉제의류의 제조 및 판매등을 목적으로 1955.경 설립된 주식회사로서 그간 국내 유망기업체로 성장하여왔으나 1971.경부터는 자금부족으로 인하여 사채권자들로부터의 운영자금조달등으로 재정상태가 극도로 악화되고, 또한 그 경영방법의 불실로 회사재무구조가 곤궁하게 되어 도산의 지경에 직면하게 되자 당시 피고회사 대표이사이던 소외 5은 피고회사의 부흥을 위하여 그 자본주를 물색하던중 1974.3.경 소외 1과 여러 차례에 걸쳐 절충끝에 같은 해 5.3.에 이르러 (1) 소외 1이 피고회사의 대표이사로 취임하여 전운영권을 가지며, 소외 5은 형식상 피고회사의 이사에 취임하되 회사운영에 대해서는 영원히 관여하지 않는다. (2) 피고회사주식의 소유비율은 소외 1측이 51%로 하고, 소외 5측이 49%로 한다. (3) 장차 피고회사의 영업이 흑자가 나더라도 소외 1이 운영자금으로 투자한 금원을 회수한 이후에야 주식에 대한 이익배당을 실시한다는 내용의 피고회사 경영권이양에 관한 약정을 체결한 사실, 위 약정당사자들은 그 약정취지에 따른 피고회사의 경영권을 이양하기 위하여 1974.5.3.에는 피고회사의 정기주주총회나 이사회가 실제로 소집되지도 않았을뿐 아니라 이러한 각 회의가 실제로 개최된 사실이 전혀 없음에도 불구하고 마치 피고회사 주주등이 절차를 밟아 소집, 개최된 그 정기주주총회에서 적법히 당시의 피고회사 대표이사 및 이사, 감사등을 해임 또는 사임시키고 소외 1, 5, 8을 이사로, 소외 9를 감사로 각 선임한다는 취지의 이사등 선임결의를 하고, 이어 같은 날 위 개임된 이사들이 이사회를 열어 소외 1을 피고회사의 대표이사로 선임한 것처럼 사법서사 사무원이던 소외 10에게 피고회사의 직인등을 맡겨 그로 하여금 주주총회회의록 및 이사회회의록을 만들게 한 후 위 각 회의록을 기초로 하여 위 회사등기부등본에 소외 1을 대표이사로 하는 내용의 변경등기를 경료하기에 이른 사실, 피고회사의 주주의 한사람인 소외 11은 피고회사를 상대로 위 1974.5.3.자 피고회사 주주총회결의의 부존재확인과 위 같은 날 이사회결의의 무효확인을 구하는 소를 1974.7.11. 서울민사지방법원에 제기하는 한편, 소외 1에 대하여 피고회사 대표이사 직무집행의 정지를 구하는 가처분신청을 하여 같은 해 8.12. 위 같은 법원으로부터 그 직무집행을 정지하는 가처분결정을 얻게 되어 이로써 소외 1은 피고회사의 대표이사직무집행을 정지당하게된 사실, 위 주주총회결의부존재 및 이사회결의의 무효확인의 소와 위 가처분결정에 대한 이의의 소는 1975.6.26. 서울민사지방법원에서 모두 위 이국자의 패소판결이 선고되었으나 위 이국자의 항소제기로 1976.4.20. 서울고등법원에서 원판결을 모두 취소하고 위 이국자의 승소판결이 선고되고, 현재 위 사건 모두 상고심에 계속중인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 일부 어긋나는 원심 및 당심증인 소외 5의 일부증언과 위 형사기록검증결과의 일부는 믿지 아니하는 바이고, 달리 반증이 없는 바 위 인정사실에 비추어 보건대, 1974.5.3.자 피고회사 주주총회결의는 부존재한 것이고, 같은 날자 이사회결의 역시 무효인 것이기는 하나 소외 1이 피고회사의 이사 및 대표이사로 등재된 것은 피고회사의 종전의 대표이사 소외 5의 의사에 의하여 경료되게된 것이니만큼 바로 피고회사가 등기한 것이라 할 것이고, 따라서 그 내용이 사실과 다르다고 하더라도 원고가 이 사실을 알고 있었다고 인정할 증거가 없는 이건에 있어 상법 제39조 의 규정상 소외 1이 피고회사의 대표이사인 것으로 믿고서 동인과 이건 부동산에 관

In relation to the plaintiff who entered into the above sales contract, it is reasonable to view that the effect of each of the above sales contract concluded with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant company cannot be denied on the ground that the non-party 1 is not a legitimate representative director of the defendant company. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Then, even if the contract of sale and purchase of the plaintiff's house was concluded, this real estate, which is the object of the sale and purchase of the defendant's house, has a significant impact on the existence or abolition of the defendant's factory, and such sale and purchase is null and void without a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders pursuant to Article 374 of the Commercial Act. The defendant argues that the transfer of real estate does not constitute an important part of the business under Article 374 of the Commercial Act, and therefore, it does not require a special resolution of the old general meeting of shareholders. Thus, the "transfer of the whole or important part of the business" in Article 374 of the Commercial Act means transfer of real estate to the defendant's factory, which is not merely a large and small value of the object of sale and sale, which is the result of the above disposal or transfer of real estate to the non-party 1's company's factory facilities, and thus, it is not necessary to establish the so-called "No. 192 of the old general meeting of shareholders."

Finally, if the contract of sale and purchase of real estate between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 is effective against the defendant company, the defendant company did not take over the obligation of the non-party 1 bank, which is the plaintiff's obligation according to the contract of sale and it does not have repaid with the interest rate, and the defendant's reply to the defendant's representative on February 6, 1975 that the contract of sale and purchase was cancelled on the ground of the plaintiff's non-performance of contract. However, in the contract of sale and purchase as a bilateral contract, the defendant is acknowledged by the whole purport of the argument that the contract of sale and purchase is denied without the execution procedure of ownership transfer registration or the provision of the delivery of real estate, which is one's own obligation. Further, the defendant's expression of intent of rescission of the contract of sale and purchase should be unilaterally cancelled on the ground of the plaintiff's non-performance of obligation without a reasonable period of time. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, according to the above recognition sale contract with the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff exempted the defendant from the defendant's liability for the repayment of KRW 20,000,000 for the non-party corporation's non-party corporation in accordance with the above recognition sale contract with the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to execute the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on May 25, 1974 for the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and to specify the above real estate. In addition, the plaintiff is exempted from the defendant's liability for repayment of KRW 100,000 for the defendant's non-party corporation, and the defendant is obligated to execute the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on June 19, 1974 for the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and to specify the above real estate. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim of this case seeking its execution is justified.

Next, we examine the defendant's counterclaims.

The provisional registration No. 34357 of the Busan District Court's receipt of the registration of August 12, 1974 for the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 was made in the name of the plaintiff on May 25 of the same year for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the purchase and sale reservation of May 25 of the same year, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the provisional registration was made in the name of the plaintiff on July 3, 1974 for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the purchase and sale reservation of June 20 of the same year.

The defendant asserts that the above provisional registration is invalid because the defendant was not a legitimate representative director of the defendant company, and the above legal act of the defendant is invalid as an act of disposal by the non-party, and even if it is not a domestic affairs, since each real estate recorded in the attached Tables 1 and 2, which is the object of sale, is an important property in the business part of the factory of the defendant company, and thus, the non-party 1 held a general meeting of shareholders on May 3, 1974 and falsely prepares the minutes as if he was elected as representative director and conducts the registration of the juristic person. The plaintiff entered into a sale contract on the real estate recorded in the attached Tables 1 and 2 on August 12, 1974 and made a provisional registration on June 20 of the same year with the above dispute. The non-party 1 is not a legitimate representative director of the defendant company, and even if it is not a domestic affairs, each real estate recorded in the attached Tables 1 and 2, which is the object of sale, has an absolute weight in the business part of the factory.

On May 25, 1974 between the non-party 1 and the representative director of the defendant company in the corporate register, as stated in the judgment on the above claim, the plaintiff entered into each sales contract with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1 on May 25, 1974; on June 19 of the same year, the non-party 1 entered into each sales contract with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 2 on June 19 of the same year; on the grounds that the registration was made as the representative director of the defendant company, the non-party 1 could not deny the validity of the above sales contract on the ground that the non-party is not the representative director of the defendant company; and on the ground that the transfer of the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2 on the ground that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 did not constitute a transfer of all or important part of the business requiring a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders under the Commercial Act, and there is no reason to dismiss this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is accepted, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed, and the conclusion is unfair, and since the plaintiff's appeal is justified, it is recognized that there is a reasonable ground to cancel it pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and provisional execution is not attached, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

[Attachment List]

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)