Cases where there is an error that deviates from the limitation of the exercise of the right to ask for a name.

If the court decides that one of the parties has no opportunity to assert any disadvantage because the existence of a fact and the legal effect of the statement is against the parties, and that party is not given an opportunity to assert that disadvantage, such exercise of the right to request a statement is unlawful by deviating from the legitimate limit of the exercise of the right to request a statement.

Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

Kim Ho-si

Secretary-General

Jeonju District Court Decision 63Na93 delivered on September 12, 1963

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The gist of the Plaintiff’s appeal is as follows:

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim based on the judgment that the contract with the above non-party company for the transfer of the mining right with the above non-party company cannot take effect by analogy of Article 245 (1) of the Claim for Compensation Act, on the ground that the above non-party company's total share certificate was owned by the representative director at the time of the above transfer of the mining right, and thus there is no room for holding a special resolution at the general meeting of shareholders. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the validity of the above contract for the transfer of the mining right without examining the issues despite the fact that there is no special resolution at the time of the above transfer of the mining right, since there is no room for holding a special resolution at the general meeting of shareholders.

The court below determined that the transfer of a mining right cannot take effect because the contract of this case with the plaintiff and the non-party 1, as an act of transferring an important property for business purpose corresponding to the transfer of a business, requires a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders under Article 245 (1) of the Indemnification Act, although it does not constitute a defendant's defense, and that the transfer of a mining right cannot take effect because it does not go through a special resolution, and it is obvious that the court below denied the validity of the above transfer of a mining right as in the lawsuit by stating that there was no special resolution at the general meeting of shareholders at the time of sale. However, it is obvious in light of the original judgment and the records, even though the plaintiff stated that the transfer of a mining right is valid without such special resolution, the court below's decision is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal reasoning that the transfer of a mining right is valid despite the absence of such special resolution against the plaintiff, and thus, the court below's decision does not err in the misapprehensioning the legal interest of one of the parties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court