1. Where deemed by a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders of a single shareholder company

Since a substantial one shareholder company is the resolution of the shareholders' Red Session, the resolution is not made by the shareholders' general meeting without formal procedures such as notice of convocation of the general meeting of shareholders.

Article 380 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff

An intervenor;

Defendant Stock Company

Seoul Central District Court (78Gahap4060) in the first instance trial

Of the original judgment on October 29, 197, the non-party 1, the director non-party 2, the director non-party 3, the director non-party 4, and the director non-party 5. On the same day, the part that confirmed the non-existence of a resolution of a provisional general meeting of shareholders that appointed the non-party 6, the director non-party 7, the director non-party 8, the director non-party 9, and the auditor non-party 10 is revoked and the claims of the plaintiff

The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

Nonparty 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and auditor Nonparty 10, who are the representative director of the Defendant on December 4, 1978, resign. On the same day, Nonparty 15 of the directors on the same day, Nonparty 16 of the directors, Nonparty 17 of the directors, and Nonparty 18 of the auditors, who are the directors, are appointed as additional directors, and the provisional general shareholders meeting resolution that appoints Nonparty 6 of the date of December 19, 1978 did not exist.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's co-litigation, and the remainder by the defendant.

(1) The court below dismissed the non-party 1, the director non-party 2, the director non-party 3, the director non-party 4, the director non-party 5 on October 28, 1977, and the non-party 6, the director non-party 7, the director non-party 8, the director non-party 9, the auditor, and the non-party 10 on the same day. The court below dismissed the plaintiff from office on May 27, 1978, and appointed the non-party 11, the director non-party 12, the director non-party 13, and the director non-party 14 on the same day.

On December 4, 1978, a resolution of a special general meeting of shareholders to change a trade name to a defendant stock company, and a resolution of a special general meeting of shareholders to appoint a director as an additional director on December 19, 1978, the non-party 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and the non-party 10, who is the representative director of the defendant stock company, shall resign. On the same day, the non-party 15, the director non-party 16, the director non-party 17, and the auditor are confirmed that there is no resolution of a special general meeting of shareholders

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. The defendant company originally stated 0.8. 28. 1957 the non-party company's capital increase of 0. 20 billion won. The non-party company's capital increase of 10. 20 billion won and 20. 7. 9 billion won were non-party company's capital increase of 0. 10 billion won. The non-party company's total share shares of 20. 20 billion won were non-party company's capital increase of 10. 9 billion won and 10. 20 billion won were non-party company's new shares increase of 10. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 3, 197 and the non-party company's total share shares of 10. 6 billion won were non-party company's shares increase of 200 billion won.

2. 원고 및 원고 공동소송참가인은 그 청구원인으로 주장하기를, 원고 및 참가인등 피고회사 원시주주들은 청구취지 각 임시주주총회를 개최하거나 그와 같은 결의를 한 일이 없는데도 불구하고 소외 6등이 마치 청구취지기재의 피고회사 각 임시주주총회가 있었던 것처럼 임시주주총회 의사록등을 위조하여 등기를 경료하였으니 그 각 부존재의 확인을 구하기 위하여 본소청구에 이르렀다고 주장함에 대하여 피고는 위 각 임시주주총회는 피고회사의 실질상 1인 주주였던 참가인으로부터 소외 6이 그 주식 전부를 양수받아 피고회사의 주주로서 개최한 것이니 원고들의 본소청구는 부당하다고 다투므로 살피건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(등기부등본), 같은 갑 제2호증(정관), 같은 갑 제10호증(계약서), 같은 갑 제26호증(등기부등본), 같은 갑 제43호증(등기부등본), 같은 갑 제44,45호증(각 임시주주총회 회의록), 같은 갑 제46호증 내지 48호증(각 주식인수증), 같은 갑 제59호증(등기부등본), 같은 을 제43호증(등기부등본), 같은 갑 제66호증(주주명부), 같은 을 제7호증(공소불제기 이유고지) 같은 을 제45의 11(피의자신문조서), 같은 을 제11호증의 1(통고문) 피고가 그 공성부분의 진정성립을 인정하므로 그 문서전체의 진정성립이 추정되는 갑 제15호증의 1(주주명부), 당심증인 소외 6의 증언에 의하여 그 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제21호증(확인서), 같은 을 제22호증(확인서), 당심증인 소외 33의 증언에 의하여 그 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제8호증(확인서)의 각 기재와 위 각 증인 및 당심증인 소외 2, 8, 9, 34, 35, 36의 각 증언 및 당심에서의 서울형사지방법원 78고단886호 참가인에 대한 위증사건, 서울지방검찰청 78형 제30744, 30745, 38934호 피의자 참가인 외 3인에 대한 배임사건, 서울지방검찰청 성동지청 79형29355호 피의자 소외 24에 대한 위증 피의사건, 서울 강남경찰서 제160호 피의자 소외 26에 대한 위증 피의사건에 대한 각 기록검증결과(다만 뒤에서 믿지 않는부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고회사의 발기주주 7인중 원고(본건 원고)는 참가인의 처, 소외 25는 그 형, 소외 24는 참가인이 피고회사 설립전 (명칭 생략)건재사를 경영할 때부터 고용하고 있던 피용자 소외 27과 소외 28은 부부간으로 참가인 집에서 같이 살면서 참가인 집의 일을 돌보아 주던 사람, 소외 26은 (명칭 생략)발전소 사무장이며 참가인의 친구의 각 위치에 있던 사람들로서 위 회사는 참가인 혼자서 출자하여 설립하면서 전시 신분 또는 친분관계가 있는 사람들을 형식상 주주로 제출한 것에 불과하였고 위 회사의 전시와 같은 수차의 증자시에 신주를 인수한 사람들 가운데 참가인을 제외한 나머지 사람들은 모두 실제로 출자하여 위 주식들을 인수한 것이 아니라 참가인이 형식상의 주식인수인으로 제출한 것에 불과하여 피고회사는 설립이래 참가인 1인의 실질적인 1인 회사였던 사실, 참가인은 이와 같이 위 회사의 실질적인 1인 주주인 대표이사로서 위 회사를 경영하여 오던중, 1977.년에 탈세 및 증수뢰 사건으로 모든 관계장부가 사직당국에 압수되고 그 자신도 유죄판결을 받았을 뿐 아니라 위 탈세사건으로 인하여 부과될 벌과금 및 추징금이 거액이 될 것으로 추정되어 1977.10.28. 위 회사의 전 주식 196,000주를 금 60,000,000원에 소외 6에게 양도하기로 하는 계약을 체결하고 소외 6은 참가인에게 피고회사 주식 양도대금 60,000,000원중 50,000,000원은 동일부터 1977.12.28까지 사이에 수표 또는 약속어음의 결재, 인수한 채무의 변제등 방법에 의하여 지급하고, 나머지 10,000,000원은 참가인이 해결하기로 한 벌과금 등이 확정고지되지 않았던 관계로 미지급 상태에 있는 사실 및 참가인은 서울 중구 서소문동 소재 서극형 변호사 사무실 근방에 있는 다과점에서 위 주식양도계약을 해결한 후 당일 곧 소외 8, 36과 함께 전시 서극형 변호사 사무실에 가서 그 사무원 소외 35에게 소외 6을 대표이사로 변경 등기할 수 있도록 임시주주총회 의사록, 이사회 의사록 등을 만들도록 의뢰한 후 작성된 이들 서류를 확인하고 나서 자기 도장과 소외 9, 19, 20 등 이사 4인의 도장을 맡겼고 이에 따라 청구취지 모두 기재와 같은 1977.10.28.자 이사 및 대표이사 변경등기가 이루어졌던 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 위 인정사실과 일부 어긋나는 갑 제23호증의 1(확인서), 전시 각 기록 검증결과 일부와 당심증인 소외 24, 26, 37, 참가인의 각 증언 일부는 이를 믿지 않고 달리 반증이 없다.

In light of the above facts of recognition, since the shares issued by the defendant company at the time of the contract for the transfer of shares between the public health team, the intervenor and the non-party 6 in the exhibition on October 28, 1977, the transfer of shares between the above parties has no effect. However, since the above company as a 1-person shareholder company is a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders and the board of directors immediately, it cannot be said that there is no resolution without the formal procedures such as the notice of the convocation of the general meeting of shareholders and the convocation of the board of directors. Thus, the plaintiff and the intervenor's assertion that the plaintiff and the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not have the temporary general meeting of shareholders as of October 28, 197, which

3. Following the plaintiff's remaining claims, namely, the non-party 7, which was wholly transferred from the intervenor's company as of May 27, 1978, and the non-party 6 whose representative director was registered as the representative director on December 19, 1978, were examined as to the non-existence of the provisional general meeting of shareholders, Gap's evidence 7 (Minutes of the temporary general meeting of shareholders), Gap evidence 8 (Minutes of the board of directors), Gap evidence 16-1 (Application for Registration of Change), Gap evidence 16-2 (Minutes of the temporary general meeting of shareholders), Gap evidence 17-1 (Application for Registration of Change), and evidence 17-2 (Minutes of the temporary general meeting of shareholders), since the non-party 6, who was registered as the representative director, was not registered as the non-party 6, which was merely the date of the above provisional general meeting of shareholders, the non-party 6, as seen above, cannot be argued as the non-existent minutes of the above provisional general meeting of shareholders.

First, on the ground that the defendant company was actually one company, the defendant company did not issue the share certificates even after the expiration of the period necessary for the issuance of the share certificates; second, on the ground that after the transfer of shares, the company was stable and the transferor denies the validity of the transfer of shares on the ground that the transfer of shares prior to the issuance of the share certificates goes against the principle of good faith. However, the defendant's assertion that the transfer of shares prior to the issuance of the share certificates is valid on the ground that the transfer of shares goes against the principle of good faith, but it cannot be accepted on the ground that the above

In addition, according to the record of the share transfer contract between the intervenor and the non-party 6, the non-party 6 made an implied declaration of intention to grant the right of representation to the non-party 6 at the time of the issuance of share certificates from the intervenor, and the defendant company issued the share certificates on May 27, 1978, the non-party 6 asserted that the non-party 6 became a legitimate shareholder of the defendant company because the non-party 6 received the share certificates from the defendant company on behalf of the intervenor. Thus, the non-party 6 asserted that the non-party 6 became a legitimate shareholder of the defendant company, the non-party 30-1,2,3 (each shareholder's list), the non-party 31-1,2,3 (each share transfer register), and the non-party 6-1,2 (each share transfer register), and the non-party 6-1,2 (each share transfer register) cannot be viewed as being delivered the share certificates to the non-party 16-party 6 to the non-party 16.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of the plaintiff et al. falls under the lawsuit trust in violation of Article 7 of the Trust Act, and thus it should be dismissed. However, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted since there is no evidence to support that the lawsuit of the plaintiff et al. falls under the lawsuit trust

4. Therefore, the plaintiff and the co-litigants' claims are justified to the extent that they seek confirmation of non-existence of the provisional shareholders' meeting as of October 28, 1977, i.e., the part excluding the part of the defendant's claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of the provisional shareholders' meeting as of May 27, 1978, i.e., the defendant's claim of the plaintiff and the co-litigants as of December 4, 1978, and 19. The remaining claims (i.e., the claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of the provisional shareholders' meeting as of October 28, 1977) are just and dismissed. Thus, the original judgment is unfair to accept the plaintiff and the co-litigants' claims as of October 28, 197, and the defendant's remaining claims are dismissed, and the plaintiff's claims are dismissed, and the plaintiff's remaining claims are extended to the plaintiff's claim as of December 198, 1978, and the provisional shareholders' claims as of Article 97.

Judges Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung