(a) Method of appeal against a decision to permit the convocation of an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders at the request of minority shareholders;

(b) Extinguishment relationship of the company closing liquidation;

(c) Reasons for loss of stockholders’ rights;

(a) With respect to a decision that permits the court to convene a temporary general meeting of shareholders pursuant to Article 145(1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act upon a request by a minority shareholder pursuant to Article 366(2) of the Commercial Act, no objection may be made pursuant to Article 145(2) of the same Act and special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall

(b) Even a company which is dissolved and whose liquidation is deemed to have been terminated pursuant to Article 520-2(1) through (4) of the Commercial Act, if the legal relationship remains and it is required to be arranged practically, it shall not be completely extinguished within the scope of such liquidation.

C. The shareholder's right shall be forfeited only due to statutory reasons, such as the retirement of shares or the procedure for forfeiture of shares due to a default of stock price, and even if the shareholder renounces his/her share certificates and destroyss his/her share certificates or returns the shares to the company, such act alone shall not lose the shares or lose the shareholder status

(a) Article 366 of the Commercial Act; Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 145 (b) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act; Articles 264, 520-2 (c) and Articles 307, 329, 335, and 343 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 63Ma15 Dated September 23, 1963. Supreme Court Decision 69Da561 Dated June 24, 1969. Supreme Court Decision 79Da2036 Decided April 8, 1980 (Gong1980, 12776) Decision 81Do1450 Decided March 23, 1982 (Gong1982,480). Supreme Court Decision 62Da117 Decided November 7, 1963 (Nob 11B31)

Congress, Inc.

Seoul High Court Order 90Ra26 Dated July 3, 1990

The special appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds for special appeal.

1. The court's decision to permit the convocation of a general meeting under Article 366 (2) of the Commercial Act to be made pursuant to Article 145 (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act cannot make an objection pursuant to Article 145 (2) of the same Act, and special appeal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is allowed. According to the records, it is obvious that the case is an objection against the decision to permit the convocation of a general meeting of shareholders at the request of a minority shareholder, and therefore, the party member is to be

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4

Even if a company is dissolved and its liquidation is deemed to have been completed under Article 520-2(1) through (4) of the Commercial Act, if the relationship of rights remains and it is necessary to adjust in reality, it shall not be completely extinguished within the scope of the company (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da2528, Jun. 18, 1968).

The court below admitted that the respondent company is not extinguished within the scope of the legal relationship to be adjusted to the respondent company and permitted the convocation of the general meeting of shareholders only for the purpose of appointing the liquidator. In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the extinguishment of the company as pointed out in

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A shareholder's right shall be forfeited only due to statutory reasons, such as the procedure for the retirement of shares or the procedure for forfeiture of shares due to the delinquency in payment, and even if the shareholder renounces his share certificates and destroyss his/her share certificates or returns his/her share certificates to the company, such act alone does not extinguish his/her shares or lose his/her shareholder status (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da117, Nov. 7, 1963). In the same purport, it is justified that the court below determined that the respondent company's act of recovering the applicant's share certificates in redemption of the apartment sale right and stating that it is against the double crossing shall not change the applicant's status as a shareholder. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the shareholder's status and the extinguishment of share certificates as

4. All arguments are without merit, and a special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)