The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s primary claim that, based on the Defendant’s 20 regular shareholders’ meeting held on March 30, 201 (hereinafter “third shareholders’ meeting of this case”) held on March 30, 201, there were significant defects in the absence or invalidity of the resolution of each director E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M, and the 20th balance sheet, income statement, statement of disposal statement, approval of earned surplus, and resolution related to redevelopment promotion.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

If a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders is nonexistent or null and void, the directors appointed by such resolution are the same as those not appointed, and thus, the board of directors cannot be established. The board of directors appointed a representative director or decided to convene a new general meeting of shareholders upon the request

Even if a resolution of appointment or convocation is not effective as a resolution of the board of directors, and only the convocation of a general meeting of shareholders by the representative director appointed by the board of directors is a non-authorized person.

Therefore, the general meeting of shareholders called as such is not a resolution of the board of directors nor a meeting of the authorized person, and thus its establishment or resolution is not recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 74Da1969 delivered on July 8, 1975, etc.). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and records, ① the Defendant’s shareholders, Q 25, et al., filed an application for a temporary general meeting of shareholders with the purpose of meeting “the dismissal of directors T, U, V, and auditors and the appointment of directors and auditors” as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Bu98, and ② the above court permitted the Defendant’s temporary general meeting of shareholders for the purpose of “the appointment of one new director” on November 6, 2007 and decided to dismiss the remainder of the application.