A. Legal nature of resignation of an incorporated foundation director;

(b) A case where a declaration of intention to resign a director of an incorporated foundation has not been completed;

(a) Resignation of a director of an incorporated foundation is an act of sole representation with the other party, and such expression of intent reaches the other party and simultaneously becomes effective, and it shall not be withdrawn with the mind of the other party after the expression of intention becomes effective.

B. It is reasonable to view that Gap, who was a director of an incorporated foundation, presented a letter of resignation from office to Eul, who was a legitimate director, and expressed his intention to resign from office, to Byung as the board of directors, but did not complete the act of expressing his intention to resign from office until the resolution of the board of directors is completed, unless Eul submitted a letter of resignation after the meeting was completed and submitted a letter of resignation to the board of directors immediately held under the implied consent of Eul.

Article 57 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da749 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2529)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Han-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na49494 delivered on May 27, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the records, the judgment below held that the non-party, who was a director of the defendant foundation, was holding a director of the defendant foundation lawfully until the resolution of the board of directors of this case was completed, and the non-party, who was a director of the defendant foundation, presented a letter of resignation to the plaintiff and the right holder of this case on March 25, 1989, and expressed that the non-party, who was a legitimate director of the defendant foundation, should resign from the director. However, the non-party, upon the plaintiff's implied consent, presented a letter of resignation to the plaintiff and the right holder of this case on March 25, 1989. However, the non-party, who was a director of the defendant foundation, participated in the above right holder's resolution of withdrawal and again submitted a letter of resignation after the completion of the meeting, and the expression of his intention to resign from the office was not completed until the resolution of the board of directors of this case was completed. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified in light of the legal principles as pointed out.

The allegation is attributable to the lower court’s finding of facts, which are the exclusive authority of the lower court, and the cooking of evidence, or is based on the premise of a different fact.

In addition, while the court to which the case was remanded from the court of final appeal was bound by the factual and legal judgment of the court of final appeal as the reason for reversal in a trial of the case, the binding force shall not extend to the case where there is a change in the factual relations, which form the basis for binding judgment, due to new arguments and evidences in the process of trial after remand, after remanding the case. Thus, as long as the court below made a conclusion different from the ground for reversal of the court of final appeal in the process of trial after remanding the case, it cannot be said that the court below violated the Court Organization Act provisions concerning subordinate service of the court of final appeal, on the ground that it

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)