logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2015.10.16 2014나14267
동대표결의무효 확인의소
Text

1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of invalidation in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2...

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the claim for confirmation of invalidation

A. The Plaintiff’s argument as to the interest in confirmation was made by adding the grounds for dismissal, even though the Plaintiff failed to meet the quorum with respect to the addition of the grounds for dismissal under the instant amendment clause, and thus, is null and void as it further resolves the method of dismissal.

In addition, the defendant, on the grounds of the dismissal of the amended rules of this case proposed by the resolution of this case, lost the plaintiff's honor by dismissing the plaintiff from the Dong representative, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case, which is the basis of dismissal of himself from the Dong representative.

B. A lawsuit seeking confirmation is permissible to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the current rights or legal status, and if the reason for seeking confirmation litigation regarding the past legal act is simply to recover damage to social reputation, it cannot be deemed to have been intended to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to existing rights or legal status.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da4011, Apr. 11, 1995). In this case, the term of office of the Plaintiff’s Dong representative before his dismissal was until October 31, 2014, and the term of office of the Plaintiff’s Dong representative was currently electioned by a new Dong representative, and the fact that the term of office was up to October 31, 2016 is no dispute between the parties.

If the Plaintiff asserts that he/she seeks confirmation of the invalidity of the instant resolution in order to restore his/her honor, the claim for confirmation of invalidation cannot be deemed to have been aimed at eliminating any danger or apprehension in relation to the current rights or legal status.

Therefore, there is no benefit in confirmation of nullity claim.

3. The portion of the claim.

arrow