(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.09 2014누72981

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.09 2014누72981

직위해제처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on a new argument made by the plaintiff in the trial, such as Paragraph 2, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to the eight pages of the five pages of the judgment of the first instance.

Article 23 (Opening of and Resolution for Resolution at Board of Directors) (1) The board of directors shall not hold meetings unless the majority of the registered directors are present. (2) Except as otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, resolutions shall be made with the concurrence of a majority of the fixed number of directors: Provided, That in cases of the numbers of votes of approval and disapproval, resolutions shall be rejected: Provided, That this shall not apply in cases where all the directors are gathered and all the directors request the holding of the board of directors.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to Article 25 of the D Articles of Incorporation, when convening a board of directors, a director must notify each director of the purpose of the meeting at least seven days prior to the meeting. D is referred to as the “Board of Directors” of September 16, 2013 (hereinafter “instant board of directors”).

(2) The minutes were falsely prepared as if the AA director did not attend the board of directors even though he did not notify the Plaintiff of the purpose of the meeting in advance. In addition, the resolution of the board of directors of this case did not meet the quorum of affirmative votes of a majority of the number of directors because only four of the D directors were present and resolved by the resolution of the board of directors of this case, which did not meet the quorum of affirmative votes of a majority of the number of directors.

3. Therefore, the resolution of the board of directors of this case is null and void due to such procedural defects.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-행정소송법 제8조 제2항

유사 판례

-대법원 2015.11.27 2014다44451

-인천지방법원 2017.10.13 2017고정1992

-의정부지방법원 2015.07.22 2015가합1212

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2021.04.15 2020가합102

-서울고등법원 2014.12.18 2014나2013196