logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2021.02.17 2019가합12007
주식회사 이사해임의 소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

C is a company that is engaged in the manufacture and sales business of Seodaemun-gu products.

The plaintiff was in office as a director of C from March 31, 2005 to March 31, 2020. The defendant is in office as a director of C from March 31, 201 to March 31, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] The defendant's principal safety defense as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 18, and the defense prior to the merits of the entire pleadings, as the term of office of director expires on March 31, 2020 while filing the lawsuit of this case, there is no interest in the lawsuit of this case seeking removal of director.

Although the defendant is reappointed after the expiration of the term of office of the director, he/she cannot request the dismissal of the director due to the occurrence of a new term of office.

Judgment

The purpose of a lawsuit seeking dismissal of a director by a minority shareholder under Article 385 (2) of the Commercial Act is to resolve the delegation relationship existing between the company and the director before the expiration of his/her term of office. Thus, in the event that the relevant director resignss or retires due to the expiration of his/her term of office while the lawsuit seeking dismissal is pending, there is no benefit in the lawsuit demanding dismissal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da5926, Apr. 12, 1996; 95Na4323, Dec. 14, 1995; 95Na4323, Dec. 14, 1995). According to the evidence No. 12, A, and No. 36, although the Plaintiff called a general meeting of shareholders for the defendant's dismissal, it was rejected at the general meeting of shareholders on November 14, 201, since the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the expiration of his/her term of office.

Since then, the Defendant was again appointed as an internal director at a general meeting of shareholders on March 30, 2020, but the Plaintiff’s appointment as a director was again decided at a general meeting of shareholders on the suitability as an exclusive resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, the instant lawsuit for dismissal brought by the Defendant for reasons before the expiration of the term of office.

arrow