The validity of a resolution of the general meeting convened by telephone without written notice to convene the general meeting;

The resolution of a general meeting shall not be deemed null and void merely on the ground that a minor defect that the notice of convening a general meeting was made without a written notice of convening a general meeting, if all the members of the general meeting did not raise any objection against the general meeting resolution, etc., because it is difficult to promptly appoint a new president of the incorporated association and restore the inferred reputation and fill the business gap.

Article 71 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na3035 Decided October 20, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since non-party 1 retired on September 14, 1984 by the former president of the defendant corporation, the non-party 2, who was acting as the president of the defendant corporation, was designated as the president at the general meeting at October 16 of the same year as the City/Do president and five general meeting members with consent of the board of directors at the general meeting at the general meeting at the time of February 21, 1983, and twelve Do council members with new appointment of the president at the general meeting at the general meeting at the same time. The general meeting at the 24th of the same month was held, the non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 5, non-party 6 and non-party 7, non-party 8 and the former president of the Chungcheongnam branch at the general meeting, non-party 12, non-party 13, and non-party 14 and the non-party 19 were not entitled to the above resolution of the court below at the general meeting at the above.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

In its reasoning, the court below's decision that the non-party 2, a person holding the authority to convene the general meeting of this case, sent the date, time, place and agenda of the general meeting to all the members of the general meeting of this case 7 days before the general meeting of this case by telephone, and did not give a notice of convening the general meeting of this case in writing stating the agenda for the meeting and did not violate the procedure of convening the general meeting of this case. However, in relation to the case in which the former president of the defendant corporation had caused water between three, the non-party 2, a person holding the authority to convene the general meeting of this case, was in violation of the procedure of convening the general meeting of this case, but there were many circumstances recognized by the record, such as the case in which the former president of the defendant corporation, appointed a new president as soon as he had caused water between three, and appointed a new president as soon as possible, and confirmed that the members of the general meeting of this case had experienced the above circumstances before the notice of convening the general meeting of this case. Although the notice of convening the general meeting of this case was confirmed to the court's reasoning or the record.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)