Cases of dismissing a request for cancellation of resolution of a general meeting of shareholders under Article 379 of the Commercial Act;

The plaintiff, who had been the former representative director of a company, convened a general meeting of shareholders without a legitimate resolution of the board of directors to convene a general meeting of shareholders without the resolution of the board of directors, and there is a defect in the convocation procedure. However, in practice, from the date of incorporation of the company to the above general meeting of shareholders, the representative director convened the general meeting of shareholders without the resolution of the board of directors, and all shareholders have accepted the above practice. The plaintiff also elected the Speaker pro tempore before holding the above general meeting without the resolution of the board of directors and presides over the expiration of the term of office. The number of shares held by the shareholders who did not receive the notification of the board of directors is 6% of the total number of shares, and even if they attended the above general meeting of shareholders and cast a vote contrary to the above resolution of the board of directors, it is obvious that the above resolution of the appointment of the officers would be cancelled even if the above resolution of the board of directors is cancelled because it does not change as a result, it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's petition for cancellation of the above general meeting of shareholders.

Article 379 of the Commercial Act

Voluntary Zus et al.

Dongnam Transportation Co., Ltd.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On February 8, 1991, the shareholders' general meeting of Defendant Dongnam Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as Defendant Co., Ltd) held that the non-party Park Young-man as the representative director of Defendant Co., Ltd.; that the non-party Kim Young-ok as the senior managing director of Defendant Co., Ltd., was revoked the resolution that appointed the same disease area as the senior managing director of Defendant Co., Ltd as the president of Defendant Co., Ltd., as the director of Defendant Co., Ltd.; that the non-party Park Young-ok as the president of Defendant Co., Ltd.; that the resolution was revoked.

1. The fact that the shareholders of the defendant company adopted a resolution to appoint officers as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the “resolution to appoint officers”) at the ordinary shareholders’ meeting on February 8, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “the above general shareholders’ meeting”) convened by the defendant company, which was the representative director of the defendant company and the shareholders of the plaintiff company. No dispute between the parties

2. We examine the plaintiffs' assertion in sequence.

가. 먼저 원고들은 피고 회사의 주주는 피고회사 소속 버스인 도시형버스 68대와 좌석버스 41대 도합 109대의 실질적인 소유자들인 원고 임생규 등 23인으로 구성되어 있고,각자 실질적으로 소유하는 버스 대수의 비율에 따라 주주권을 보유하고 있는바, 위 주주총회에서 위 109대의 버스 중 31대의 좌석버스가 피고 회사 소속 버스가 아니라는 이유로 그 실질적인 소유자인 원고 임생규 등 23인으로 구성되어 있고, 각자 실질적으로 소유하는 버스 대수의 비율에 따라 주주권을 보유하고 있는바, 위 주주총회에세 위 109대의 버스중 31대의 좌석버스가 피고 회사 소속 버스가 아니라는 이유로 그 실질적인 소유자인 원고 임생규 등 주주들이 그에 해당하는 주주권을 행사하지 못한 채 이 사건 임원선임결의가 이루어졌으므로 이 사건 임원선임결의는 절창에 하자가 있는 결의로 취소되어야 한다고 주장하므로 살피건대. 갑 제1호증, 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 제6호증 1, 2, 3, 을 제1호증, 을 제2호증의 1, 2, 을 제3, 4, 5호증, 을 제52호증의 1 내지 31의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고 회사의 자본금은 금 136,240,000원이고,총주식수는 13,624주인 사실, 피고 회사의 주주는 당초 피고 회사소속 도시형버스의 실질적인 소유자들로 구성되어 있는데 그 주주들은 피고 회사 설립 이래 각자 소유하는 버스 대수의 비율에 따라 주주권을 행사하여 온 사실, 피고 회사가 1987.11.14. 소외 동양교통주식회사로부터 좌석버스 16대, 1988.3.7.소외 신촌교통주식회사로부터 좌석버스 1대, 같은 해 9.29. 소외 세풍운수주식회사로부터 좌석버스 14대 도합 31대(이하 위 31대의 좌석버스라 한다)를 피고 회사 명의로 양수하여 725번 좌석버스로 24대를, 67번 좌석버스로 7대를 각 운영하고 있었으나 위 31대의 좌석버스의 실질적인 소유자는 원고 임생규(17대), 소외 이종하, 같은 이병구, 같은 한상혁(각3대), 같은 임동섭, 같은 박상엽(각2대), 같은 김옥윤(1대)인 사실,피고회사는 위 주주총회 당시 위 31대의 좌석버스 이외에도 도시형버스 68대, 1990.8.29. 도시형버스에서 좌석버스로 형간변경된 좌석버스 5대 및 같은 해 9.29. 증차된 좌석버스 5대 도합 78대의 버스(이하 위 78대의 버스라 한다)를 소유하고 있었는데 위 78대의 버스의 실질적인 소유자(위 31대의 좌석버스의 소유자들 모두 위 78대의 버스의 소유자들에 포함된다) 와 그 소유 대수는 별지주주명부 기재와 같은 사실, 피고회사의 대표이사이던 원고 임생규는 1991.1.21. 피고 회사 소속버스가 모두 109대임에도 위 78대에 대한 주주권만을 인정하여 같은 별지 기재의 21인의 주주 중 원고 임영수, 소외 김동문을 제외한 나머지 19인의 주주들에게 위 주주총회 소집통지을하여 그들이 같은 해 2.8.위 주주총회에 참석, 같은 별지 기재와 같은 소유 대수의 비율에 따라 주주권을 행사하여 이 사건 임원선임 결의를 하였으나 위 31대의 좌석버스의 실제 소유자들은 위31대의 좌석버스의 소유 비율에 따른 주주권을 행사하지못한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있으나 위 인정사실만으로는 원고들의 주장과 같이 이 사건 임원선임결의시의 주주권행사에 하자가 있었다고 보기 어렵고 오히려 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 6, 을 제7, 8, 9호증의 1, 2, 3, 을 제11호증, 을 제12, 13, 14, 15, 16호증의 1, 2, 을 제19, 20, 24, 25, 26호증, 을 제29, 30, 31호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 을 제34호증의1, 2, 을 제35호증의 1 내지 7, 을 제36호증의 1 내지 28, 을 제37호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 을 제41 내지 47호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 을 제50,51호증, 을 제63호증의 1 내지 8, 을 제64호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 을 제65, 66호증의 1, 2, 을 제72호증의 1, 2, 3, 4의 각 기재와 증인 김경미, 같은 박상엽의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고회사 정관은 제19조 제2호에서 증자에 관한 사항은 주주총회의 의결을 거치도록 제24조 제1항 제3호에서 피고 회사의 업무집행에 관한 주요사항은 이사회의결의에 의하도록 각 규정하고 있는 사실,피고 회사가 타인으로부터 피고 회사의 기본재산인 버스 등을 양수하는 때에는 위정관의 규정에 따라 이사회 및 주주총회의 결의를 거쳐야 함에도 피고 회사의 대표이사이던 원고 임생규가 이사회나 주주총회의 결의 없이 보관하고 있던 피고 회사 이사들의 인장을 이용하여 이사회결의서를 작성한 후 본 바와 같이 피고 회사명의로 소외 동양교통주식회사 등으로부터 위 31대의 좌석버스를 양수한 사실, 위 31대의 좌석버스를 양수한 사실, 위 31대의 좌석버스의 실질적인 소유자는 원고 임생규(17대), 소외 이종하, 같은 이병구 같은 한상혁(각 3대), 같은 임동섭, 같은 박상엽(각 2대), 같은 김옥윤(1대) 등 7인인데 그들이 위 31대의 좌석버스를 취득한 이래 위 주주총회에 이르기까지 여러 차례의 주주총회 위 31대의 좌석버스가 그들이 출자

The facts that there was no exercise of shareholder's right corresponding to the bus of the defendant company, that the plaintiff company's life rule was an urban bus and the seat bus 725 and 67, that 24 of the above 31 seat bus is a seat bus 725, and 7 of the above 31 seat bus is a seat bus 67, separately managing the wages, insurance premiums, accident disposal expenses, installment payments, etc. of the employees required for the operation of the above 78 seat bus separately from the expenses required for the operation of the above 78 seat bus, but all of the above 78 seat operating expenses of the defendant company were spent from the above 78 seat operation expenses of the above 78 seat company, and since the monthly income of the defendant company was divided into the above 78 seat number of the above 78 seat seat bus and the profits from the above 1 share of the above 1 share of the company's share to the above 31 share of the shareholders' right of the above 1 share of the above 31 share.

B. Next, the plaintiffs asserted that the resolution for the appointment of executive officers of this case should be revoked because it is a resolution of procedural defect made by a person who is not the representative director against the provisions of the articles of incorporation of the defendant company. Thus, according to the articles of incorporation of the defendant company, the chairperson of the general meeting of shareholders is required to leave the representative director. However, the above general meeting of shareholders held by the chairperson of the non-party 5, and the above general meeting of shareholders was resolved to appoint executive officers of this case without dispute between the parties, and in full view of the purport of the arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 5 and Nos. 72-4, the above general meeting of shareholders was held by the shareholders of 19, other than the plaintiff 5, the number of executive officers of this case among the shareholders listed in the attached Form No. 78, and the bus owned by the shareholders present at the above general meeting of shareholders is 73, the number of executive officers of this case and the bus actually owned by the non-party 1,4, the above representative director of the general meeting of shareholders was the chairperson of this case, and approved of this case.

According to the above facts, the resolution for the appointment of executive officers of this case was made by the Speaker elected as a full-time member of the 19 shareholders' meeting, including the plaintiff 1, who was the representative director of the defendant company, who owned 73 percent of the total number of 93.6 percent of the total number of 78 buses by substantially owning the above 73 buses among the above 78 buses. The resolution for the appointment of executive officers of this case was made by the Speaker elected as a full-time member of the 19 shareholders' meeting, including the plaintiff 1, who was the representative director of the defendant company,. Thus, if the representative director with the position of the 93.6 percent shares of the total number of 93.6 percent of the total number of shares attended the above 78 shareholders' meeting and appointed the 93.6 percent shares as a full-time representative director, it would be unreasonable, in light of the circumstances and circumstances alleged in the above resolution, as alleged in the articles of incorporation, since most of the above resolutions are inconsistent with the majority's intent.

In addition, even though shareholders who attended the above general meeting of shareholders were elected as the Speaker pro tempore, the above resolution of election of the Speaker pro tempore is a defective resolution made by the actual owners of the above 31 seat bus without exercising their shareholders' rights corresponding thereto. Therefore, the resolution of appointment of the executive of this case taken by the Speaker pro tempore elected by defective procedures should also be revoked as illegal. However, the above 31 seat bus is merely merely a bus registered in the name of the defendant company without the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, because it is merely a bus registered in the name of the defendant company without the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors, on the ground that the above 31 seat bus is not a bus owned by the defendant company, but the

C. Furthermore, the resolution of the appointment of executive officers of this case was made at the general meeting of shareholders without the resolution of the board of directors, and it is argued that it was made at the general meeting of shareholders of the defendant company without the notification of convocation to three persons, including the number of executive officers, Kim Dong-ho, and the final office office, among the shareholders of the defendant company, and thus, the fact that the above general meeting of shareholders was convened without the resolution of the board of directors does not conflict between the parties, and considering the whole purport of the pleading in the statement Nos. 3, 5, 11, the above fact that the above general meeting of shareholders was convened without the resolution of the board of directors, the defendant company's general meeting of shareholders shall not be held at the general meeting of shareholders of the defendant company No. 2, No. 5, No. 6, the evidence No. 2, the defendant company's testimony No. 8, the defendant company No. 2, the defendant company's testimony No. 3, the defendant company No. 6, the defendant company No. 1, the defendant No. 2's evidence No. 6, the defendant No. 2, and the defendant No. 2

Therefore, the resolution of the appointment of executive officer of this case is not only without the resolution of the board of directors but also made at the above general meeting of shareholders convened without the notice of convocation for some shareholders. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the resolution of the appointment of executive officer of this case must be revoked by the resolution defective in

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) No. 5, (b) No. 6-2, No. 3, and No. 8-2; (b) No. 24, No. 25, and No. 26; (c) No. 72-2, No. 72; and (d) No. 74 of the company’s testimony for Kim Jong-Un; (b) the defendant company convened a general meeting of shareholders by agreement between the representative director and full-time directors without a resolution of the board of directors until 190; (c) No. 444 of the company’s total number of stocks issued by the above 7-2, No. 9 of the company’s 7-2, No. 7 of the company’s 7-2, a general meeting of shareholders; and (d) No. 9 of the company’s 7-2, a general meeting of shareholders; and (d) the number of stocks held by the representative director of the 5-3 company’s 7-2, a general meeting of shareholders.

According to the above facts, since the incorporation of the defendant company and the above general meeting of shareholders, the representative director has convened the general meeting of shareholders only with the agreement with the full-time director without the resolution of the board of directors, and all of the shareholders have accepted the above practice. The plaintiff's full-time officer did not convene the above general meeting of shareholders and preside over the above general meeting of shareholders without any objection from the shareholders present at the above general meeting without the resolution of the board of directors. The number of the plaintiffs who did not attend the above general meeting of shareholders and the non-party Kim Dong-dong held the above general meeting of shareholders is 6.4% (5.78) of the total number of the defendant company's total number of stocks. In accordance with such practice, the above general meeting of shareholders was accepted by the general meeting of shareholders without the resolution of the board of directors, and the above general meeting of shareholders is not only insignificant, but also it is obvious that the majority of the defendant company's total number of stocks did not exceed the above resolution of the general meeting of shareholders and even if the non-party Kim Dong-dong attended attended attending attending the above general meeting of shareholders, the majority of the defendant's.

3. If so, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are unfair, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow-Don (Presiding Judge)