beta
Text
1. It is confirmed that there is no resolution and resolution by the board of directors listed in the Defendant’s attached list.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a company established on July 24, 2008 for the purpose of manufacturing forest aggregates.
B. By the resolution of a temporary general meeting of shareholders entered in the Defendant’s order (hereinafter “the resolution of the instant general meeting of shareholders”), C, D, and E were each internal directors, and F were appointed as auditors, and C was appointed as representative director by the Defendant’s resolution of resolution of board of directors entered in the Defendant’s order (hereinafter “the resolution of board of directors”).
C. On July 26, 2012, according to each of the above resolutions (hereinafter “each of the instant resolutions”), the registration of appointment of inside directors C, inside directors D, E, and auditor F and the Plaintiff’s retirement registration, etc. were completed respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3-1, Evidence No. 4-1, and 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. First, the Defendant does not have the status of director or shareholder of the Defendant Company, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of each of the instant resolutions, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
In light of the facts stated in the evidence No. 22-1 and No. 2, the plaintiff is presumed to have been a shareholder of the defendant company and has the burden of proof on the part of denying his/her shareholder right (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51505, Mar. 11, 2010). According to the evidence No. 4-2, the plaintiff can recognize that the plaintiff was a shareholder of the defendant company as a shareholder holding 24,00 shares of the defendant company. Thus, in light of the evidence No. 22-1 and No. 2, the plaintiff is presumed to have been a shareholder of the defendant company. The plaintiff's defense is insufficient to reverse such presumption only with the statement No. 12, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
B. Next, the Defendant had already closed down his business and had no asset, and the Plaintiff and its surrounding persons are favorable in the relevant lawsuit (this Court 2013 Gohap654).