(a) The case holding that if the temporary directors were present at the temporary directors' meeting convened by a director who had worked in the Republic of Korea among the regular directors of the foundation foundation, and all of the directors were not at issue of the legality of the convocation procedure, it cannot be deemed that the procedure for the selection and appointment of the representative director or the procedure for convening the temporary board convened by the representative director pursuant to the above temporary meeting

B. Whether the court may cancel or change a decision to appoint a provisional director under Article 63 of the Civil Act after making such a decision (affirmative)

(a) The case holding that if one of the directors of the incorporated foundation was not a person in Korea as a regular director of the incorporated foundation at the time of convening a temporary directors' meeting, and he did not have any other persons, and if all the directors present at the temporary directors' meeting convened by him and appointed by the court did not examine the legality of the convocation procedure, it cannot be deemed that the procedure of convening a temporary directors' meeting convened by the above temporary directors' meeting is unlawful, notwithstanding the provisions of the articles of incorporation, by the above temporary directors' resolution

B. Appointment of a provisional director under Article 63 of the Civil Code is subject to regulation of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, and the court may cancel or change the decision where it is deemed that the decision to appoint a provisional director is unfair after the decision to appoint a provisional director has changed circumstances.

A. Article 58 of the Civil Act: Article 63 of the Civil Act; Article 19 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Order 68Ma597 Dated June 28, 1968 (No. 16 ② citizen 198)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Order 91Ra46 dated November 18, 1991

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, if the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were to attend the above 7th session of the Korea Foundation under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and the non-party 4 were to have cancelled the authorization of taking office for the directors other than the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 among the 7 directors of the above Foundation, the court below held that the non-party 1 and the non-party 5 were to have attended the 7th session of the Korea Foundation under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were to have been appointed for the non-party 6th session under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were to have been appointed for the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's temporary directors' temporary directors' temporary directors' temporary directors' temporary directors' temporary directors' temporary directors' non-party 1 and the non-party 6th session.

2. Appointment of a provisional director under Article 63 of the Civil Act is subject to regulation of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, and the court may cancel or change the decision to appoint a provisional director if it is deemed that the decision to appoint a provisional director is unfair after the decision to appoint a provisional director was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 68Ma597, Jun. 28, 1968). Supreme Court Decision 2008Da8597, Jun. 28, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da8597, Jun.

In addition, according to the above, the temporary board of directors at the above three times continued to fall short of the quorum and the board of directors is unable to elect the director later. Accordingly, it can be seen that the first instance court accepted the applicant's application and re-appointed temporary directors.

Therefore, the court below's action that dismissed the re-appellant who performed an act beyond the authority of temporary directors from the position of temporary directors and maintained that the decision of temporary directors of the court of first instance that appointed another person as temporary directors is justifiable and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 63 of the Civil Code and Article 19 (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the reappeal 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)