logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.06.23 2015나24943
이사회결의무효확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the purpose of the meeting “B” for the purpose of meeting “B” is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition as follows; (b) thereby, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

3. Judgment on the unlawful defense of the filing of a lawsuit

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion F, during the first instance trial, was automatically disqualified due to the Defendant’s articles of incorporation and the Social Welfare Services Act’s final and conclusive judgment of conviction against the violation of the Social Welfare Services Act and embezzlement, etc.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful as it is filed by F, who is not a legitimate representative of the defendant, on behalf of the defendant.

B. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the facts found in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, 14, and 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) On August 6, 2014, in the case of embezzlement, etc. by the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Decision 2013Ma706, Aug. 6, 2014, F: (a) “In order to withdraw cash from the corporate account at the defendant office located in Nam-gu, Seoul District Court on Nov. 21, 2012; (b) instead of preparing relevant documents, F shall not prepare a written disbursement resolution; (c) make a withdrawal of KRW 3,600,00 for the withdrawal of facilities and use it for personal purposes; and (d) embezzled total KRW 15,201,243 for five times until March 29, 2013; and (e) made a judgment denying the use of KRW 350,00 for the purpose of repaying the personal debt of the facility teacher at the defendant office located in Nam-gu, Seoul District Court Decision 200, Nov. 21, 2012; and (e) made a judgment denying the use of the subsidy by 300,21501.

b) has been sentenced;

arrow