logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.11.20 2015나2034794
총회결의 효력정지
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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "(i) on August 20, 2014, I presented a payment proposal to the branch office of the Nonghyup Bank Act No. 1700,000 won, which was withdrawn by cashier's checks, as above, on August 20, 2014; and (ii) on the same day, I remitted 17 million won to M under the name of the defendant; and (iii) on August 27, 2014 through February 16, 2015, the 17 million won was withdrawn by check, and was presented by each payment proposal between August 27, 2014 and February 16, 2015. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the annual fee of the new member of the court of first instance was not paid and only its appearance was changed by the appearance of the new member of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence No. 219, May 13, 2019.

2. The changed part

A. Part on the 6th to 19th of the judgment of the court of first instance

B. Whether the new member of the instant case is qualified as a regular member, and whether there was a legitimate delegation of voting rights of the instant general meeting (Dispute 2) 1), whether the new member of the instant case is a member of the instant general meeting, and whether there was a legitimate delegation of voting rights of the instant general meeting (Dispute 2-1) / [In most cases, the new member claiming the Plaintiff is a person who, as the former member of the instant general meeting, has forged a written application for membership in order to secure voting rights prior to the instant general meeting, or signed only on the application for membership without confirming his/her genuine intent, and cannot be deemed to be the Defendant’s regular member’s status. Even if he/she is in a family regular member status, it cannot be said that there was a legitimate delegation of voting rights at the general meeting of the instant case.

arrow