logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.10.25 2016가합2713
총회결의등무효확인
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On October 28, 1969, the Defendant is an incorporated association established for the purpose of the prosperity and development of the commercial building as the members of the sectional owners of the AD shop located outside the Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). The Plaintiffs owned the store located in the instant commercial building.

On June 28, 2004, AE election of the representative of AE was registered on November 23, 2004 with the consent of all the 167 members and 113 members present.

AE has a position as the representative of the defendant and did not hold a regular meeting once, but around April 24, 2012, "The 2012 ordinary meeting was held on April 14, 2012, but it was held on April 14, 2012, but, pursuant to Article 34, paragraph 4 of the articles of incorporation, if a meeting is held below gender members only during the first general meeting, re-call is omitted, and all the powers of the general meeting are automatically delegated to the representatives, and in such cases, the president shall convene a meeting of representatives within 10 days to elect the officers.

“After making a public announcement to the effect that G was elected as the president and the vice president at that time. However, G was not registered as the representative of the corporate registry of G. However, on April 8, 2016, 43 of the Defendant’s extraordinary general meeting and 167 members of the Defendant’s resolution of appointment of executive officers at the Defendant’s general meeting and 167 demands G to convene an extraordinary general meeting with the purpose of dismissing the Defendant’s president and appointing the president and appointing the new president at two times on September 21, 2015 and October 13, 2015. G and AE, a representative of the Defendant’s registration, did not take the procedure of convening an extraordinary general meeting; the said 43 members, who were the representatives of the Defendant, applied for permission to convene an extraordinary general meeting with the Busan District Court 2016FF5, and obtained the permission to convene an extraordinary general meeting from the above court for the purpose of settlement of accounts for the year 2013 and year 2015.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant decision to permit the convening of the special general meeting”. Members.

arrow