Even if a Korean employee remains in office in a domestic corporation prescribed in Article 156 of the US military law, the property manager shall also have the right to convene a general meeting of shareholders and shall not be subject to any unconstitutional law.

Even if a Korean employee remains in office in a domestic corporation prescribed in Article 156 of the US military law, the property manager shall also have the right to convene a general meeting of shareholders and shall not be subject to any unconstitutional law.

Military Affairs Act No. 156

Supreme Court Decision 69Da658 Decided July 8, 1969

Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

Defendant

Incheon support in the first instance court, Seoul Civil Service District Court Decision 69Na1 delivered on November 28, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the supplementary intervenor, while the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor.

As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

(1) If a property manager prescribed in Article 156 of the U.S. military statutes has the right to call a general meeting of shareholders, it shall be interpreted that the right to call a general meeting of shareholders has been recognized as well as the representative director, and the property manager also has the right to call a general meeting of shareholders (see this case, e.g., Supreme Court Order 1969.7.8, Jul. 8, 1969; 69Da658), and thus, it cannot be deemed unconstitutional statutes that infringe on the authority of the representative of a domestic corporation. In light of the evidence stated in the original judgment, the judgment of the court in charge that recognized the existence of the resolution on the premise that there is no materials to recognize the absence of each general meeting of shareholders by convening the meeting of the property manager and the non-existence of each general meeting of shareholders on Feb. 5, 1960 shall not be acceptable

(2) As long as a public official entrusted with the voting rights of the shares devolving upon the Minister of Finance and Economy appears and exercises his voting rights, the public official delegated by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall have no effect on the validity of the resolution, unless there are special circumstances such as the decision to revoke the resolution, etc., even if he attends the meeting and exercises voting rights of the shares devolving upon the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. There is no error in the judgment of the court below in finding that the public official was scheduled to be appointed from the director and the auditor of the lawsuit and did not recognize that he had

The issue is either groundless or groundless.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet