It means that there is a vacancy for directors under Article 63 of the Civil Act.

If there is a vacancy for directors under Article 63 of the Civil Code, it refers to a case where there is a shortage of the prescribed number of directors in the articles of incorporation, so there is a vacancy for directors when there is a director retired from the expiration of term without appointing a new director.

Attorney Lee Dong-dong Broadcasting Station, Attorney Lee Jae-won, Lee Jae-sung

Attorney Cho Jong-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Order 74Ra66 Dated November 29, 1974

The reappeal is dismissed.

We examine the re-appellant's re-appeals' grounds.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the original decision after June 30, 1974, the court below recognized the fact that three directors are vacant due to the expiration of the term of three directors at the time of the original decision among seven directors of the re-appellant corporation, which can be seen to the effect that the decision on the assertion of the lawsuit was made. Thus, the court below did not err in the omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, because it can be seen to the purport

With respect to the second ground:

According to the original decision, the court below recognized the fact that the term of office of one-time director expires on June 30, 1974 by the records, and that the three-time directors are vacant and the board of directors spread several times due to the fact that there is a concern about causing considerable damage to the re-appellant's business. Accordingly, the court below's examination of the above fact-finding by the records did not contain any errors and did not contain any errors, nor did it recognize facts based on evidence. The argument is without merit.

With respect to the third point:

In the event of a vacancy for directors under Article 63 of the Civil Code, it refers to a case where there is a shortage of the prescribed number of the directors in the articles of incorporation. Thus, if there is a director retired from the expiration of the term without appointing a new director, it is difficult to accept the argument that the term of office will expire, and that the former director cannot be deemed a vacancy unless there are special circumstances deemed inappropriate to have the former director perform the previous duties of the corporation. In addition, even if the above case is a vacancy, it is not known that there is no possibility that the former director may cause damage as long as he can perform the previous duties due to the absence of such special circumstances as above, but it is not acceptable as it attacks the order of the court below on the premise of a fact different from the facts

If it is true that the reappeal is not reasonable, it shall be dismissed.

The opinions of involved judges are consistent with this decision.

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)