logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.29 2016나2041126
임시주주총회결의부존재확인 등
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuit, Attached Table 2.B.

paragraph (1) of this section.

Reasons

1. From "1. Basic Facts" to "2. The parties' assertion" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of "the plaintiff's resolution of this case" in the third 16th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th,

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

3. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the non-existence of the separate lawsuit of this case

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the present right or legal status, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate the anxiety risk (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). In addition, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of a certain right or legal relation, the legal appearance can be claimed for confirmation of the absence of a legal relationship with the purpose of seeking confirmation of non-existence of a right or legal relation, or with the legal appearance,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da35849 Decided July 25, 2013). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of non-existence of the separate resolution of this case based on the premise that the separate resolution of this case was actually made at the second general meeting of shareholders of this case, and the Plaintiff sought confirmation of non-existence of the separate resolution of this case on the premise that there was no serious defect. However, in light of the “basic facts” recognized earlier and the description of evidence No. 22, etc., the second general meeting of shareholders of this case.

arrow