Whether a petitioner is obliged to provide security in a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders

In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, there is no ground to apply Article 377 of the Commercial Act to the lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and thus, it cannot be ordered to provide a reasonable security to the complainant. (Dissenting Opinion) In comparison with the application of Article 377 of the Commercial Act to the lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, it shall be deemed that

*. To abolish this decision as the Supreme Court Decision 1982.9.80Da2425 Decided September 14, 1982

Appellant 1 et al. and five re-Appellants Attorneys Hong-man, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 63Ra65 dated November 2, 1963

The original decision shall be reversed and the first instance decision shall be revoked.

The defendant's request for an order to provide security shall be dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal of the re-appellant's agent are examined.

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below held that Article 249 of the former Commercial Act applies mutatis mutandis to a claim for confirmation of absence of a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, on the premise that it is reasonable to view that any person who asserts that he was deprived of his status as a shareholder under the name of the general meeting of shareholders can file a lawsuit for confirmation of absence in accordance with the general principle, and that even in a lawsuit for confirmation of absence, the provision

However, Article 249 of the former Commercial Act provides that the obligation of a shareholder who files a lawsuit for cancellation of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders to provide a reasonable security at the request of the company shall apply mutatis mutandis to a lawsuit claiming confirmation of invalidity of a resolution on the ground that the contents of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders violate the statutes or the articles of incorporation pursuant to Article 252 of the former Commercial Act, and there is no provision of the Commercial Act with regard to the lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. Therefore, Article 249 of the former Commercial Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the above lawsuit. Therefore,

Therefore, since the original decision is reversed and the original decision is revoked and the defendant's application for the defendant's offering of security is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the other part of the Supreme Court's decision except for the Han Sung-sung, Hong Pung, Ma-man, Ma-Ma, and

The dissenting opinion of the judge of the Supreme Court is as follows. The number of Chinese judges, red scarcitys, scargs, scargs, the highest leap

Although a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of a resolution, such as a lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders, was adopted by a resolution of the general meeting, the confirmation of the existence of a resolution does not exist as a valid resolution because the contents of the resolution are in violation of the statutes or the articles of incorporation and are null and void. The latter is a means of demanding confirmation of the existence of the resolution itself in the form of the general meeting, but because it is obvious and serious in the process of its establishment, the existence of the resolution itself is obvious and serious, and therefore, it is common in demanding confirmation of the existence of a valid resolution at the general meeting when it cannot be viewed that the resolution itself exists as a valid resolution at the general meeting, and it is common in demanding confirmation of the existence of a resolution at the same time, and Article 249 of the former Commercial Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to a lawsuit for confirmation of invalidity of a resolution,

The concurrence with the majority of judges of the Supreme Court is as follows.

If a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the resolution of the general meeting was filed on the ground that the copy of the resolution of the general meeting was forged even though the resolution of the general meeting was not held, the plaintiff's actual intention is (1) to seek confirmation that there was no objective fact that the resolution of the general meeting was made in the past, and (2) to seek confirmation that there was no legal effect or legal relationship due to the resolution of the general meeting, or that there was no legal relation.

In addition, Article 252, Article 249 of the former Commercial Act requires that the company be provided with adequate security upon the request of the company against the shareholders who filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting shall be limited to the interests of others as a result of the lawsuit, or the company shall be damaged due to the absence of a responsible shareholders' lawsuit. Therefore, it shall be compared to this, so that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the general meeting and the lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of the resolution of the general meeting can be interpreted as having the plaintiff provide adequate security upon the request of the defendant company by applying this provision mutatis mutandis.

April 20, 199

Justices Cho J-jin-man (Presiding Justice) Magjin-man (Presiding Justice) Magjin-do and Kim Dong-ri and Kim Jong-ri, Hansung Pung-kak, Hansung Hong-song, Mag-man, Mag-ri, Mag