logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.29 2015나2061994
주주총회결의무효확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

The defendant is a company established on September 17, 2012 for the purpose of house rental business, etc., and the plaintiff is the defendant's shareholder.

B. The total number of shares issued by the Defendant is 1,000 shares (ordinary shares) and among them, the Plaintiff holds 340 shares (34%), D 30 shares (33%) and E 330 shares (33%).

C. On May 12, 2015, the Defendant made a resolution to appoint C as an auditor with the consent of D and E at a temporary general meeting of shareholders held in the presence of the Plaintiff, D and E (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

2. Appointment of auditors who have been present at the meeting of the plaintiff requires a majority of the voting rights of the shareholders present at the meeting and a majority of at least 1/4 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares. If auditors are appointed, shareholders who hold more than 3/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares may not exercise

D and E shall not exercise voting rights on shares exceeding 3% in the case of a resolution to appoint an auditor as a shareholder who holds 33% of the shares issued by the defendant.

Since the resolution of this case was conducted with the consent of 6% in total, the majority of the voting rights (9%) of the shareholders present at the meeting was satisfied.

However, in addition to the above requirements, the appointment resolution of auditors was not satisfied in addition to the affirmative requirement of at least 1/4 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares.

Therefore, since the resolution of this case is in violation of Article 368 (1) of the Commercial Act and Articles 26 and 25 of the defendant's articles of incorporation, the plaintiff primarily seeks confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of this case and revocation of the resolution of this case.

3. Determination

(1) The resolution of the general meeting shall be made by the shareholders present at the meeting except as otherwise provided in this Act or in the articles of incorporation.

arrow