beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases where a part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Parts to be dried;
(a) Parts VII through VIII of the first instance judgment shall be written in the following manner:
1) Article 429 of the Commercial Act provides that “The invalidation of the issuance of new shares may be asserted only by a lawsuit within six months from the date of the issuance of new shares to shareholders’ directors or auditors.” Thus, even if there are grounds for revocation or invalidity in the resolution of the board of directors or the general meeting of shareholders, a lawsuit may be instituted only by a lawsuit seeking invalidation of the issuance of new shares after the issuance of new shares may take place. However, in a case where the procedural defect in the issuance of new shares is extremely serious in the issuance of a company and there is no issuance of new shares, a lawsuit seeking confirmation may be filed without the lawsuit seeking invalidation of the issuance of new shares (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2316, Jul. 25, 1989). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to find that the lack of procedural defect itself does not exist even if the Plaintiff submitted evidence and its assertion by the court, such as the evidence stated in subparagraphs 29 through 33, and the lack of procedural defect in the issuance of new shares.
Ultimately, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion based on a different premise is without merit.
A person shall be appointed.
B. The first instance court’s judgment No. 9-3-5 (“instant case”).