beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court of first instance renders a motion from Nos. 7 to 8, 14, and 1, as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil
2. Next, the part 2 of the lower judgment is examined as to the legitimacy of the Defendant’s claim for nullification of the resolution that appointed the Plaintiff at the extraordinary general meeting of June 14, 2013. The lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation has the interest in confirmation that obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the legal relationship is an appropriate means in order to eliminate the risk or apprehension regarding the present rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da4011, Apr. 11, 1995; 2005Da41153, Jul. 10, 2008). The said resolution causes danger or apprehension in the current Plaintiff’s rights or legal status.
Since there is no evidence that obtaining a judgment on confirmation that the above resolution is null and void in order to remove it, the above part of the claim for confirmation has no benefit of confirmation.
3. The conclusion is as follows: (a) as a director with the Plaintiff’s representative authority among the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim to nullify the registration of retirement on June 21, 2013 due to retirement on April 29, 2012; (b) the claim to nullify the invalidity of the resolution appointing C at the extraordinary general meeting of June 14, 2013; (c) the Defendant’s claim to nullify the invalidity of the resolution appointing C as a director at the extraordinary general meeting of August 8, 2013; and (d) the claim to nullify the invalidity of the resolution appointing C as a director, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J; and (e) the Plaintiff’s claim to recover the power as a director with the Defendant’s representative authority; and (e) the first instance judgment is justifiable as it is so decided as per Disposition.