Whether temporary directors have a representative authority of a corporation

Provisional directors of a corporation are appointed by the court when it is likely to cause damage to the corporation or the other party, and are authorized to represent each corporation in accordance with the general principles concerning the power of representation of the corporate director.

Articles 63 and 59 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4290Da659 Decided June 26, 1958 (Supreme Court Decision 5489 Decided 5489, Supreme Court Decision 63Da449 Decided December 12, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 6905Da6906 and 6907 Decided 112, Supreme Court Decision 11Na285 Decided the summary of the decision and Article 63(8,9)22 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 20(2)1109 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act)

Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation

Defendant School Foundation

Busan District Court (69Da5358)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

On February 8, 1956, the defendant completed the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the donation on February 7, 1956, as Busan District Court Busan District Court's Busan District Court's receipt No. 1065 on the real estate in the attached list

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) The defendant filed a lawsuit against this Safety Defense with the provisional director non-party 1, the provisional director of the plaintiff corporation was non-party 1, and the provisional director of the plaintiff corporation was non-party 1 and four others according to the copy of the register submitted by the plaintiff, and they were elected by the competent government agency to the extent they are temporary directors of the school foundation, so they were not entitled to represent the plaintiff corporation, and they were not entitled to represent the plaintiff corporation because they were elected by the court. Further, according to the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff corporation, the plaintiff corporation was incorporated into the plaintiff corporation solely on behalf of the non-party 1, among five provisional directors, and according to the above articles of incorporation of the plaintiff corporation, the plaintiff corporation still remains as supporting foundation, and this article was deleted on December 6, 1954, and the plaintiff corporation had no authority to appoint the plaintiff corporation as the plaintiff corporation's temporary director or the non-party corporation's representative's representative's representative's representative's representative's representative's representative's representative's representative's director's representative's representative's representative's director's representative's representative's representative's representative's representative's representative's second.

(2) As to the merits, since there is no dispute between the parties as to the real estate stated in the purport of the claim, which is registered in the name of the defendant as stated therein, each real estate shall be presumed owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that the real estate was the basic property owned by the plaintiff corporation, but the plaintiff had no resolution of the board of directors or permission from the competent authority on the thickness of February 7, 1956, which was the basic property owned by the plaintiff corporation, was the original property owned by the plaintiff corporation, and the defendant had no permission from the board of directors or the competent authority, as at the time of expiration of the term of office, the document is forged as if the non-party 3, whose qualification as president of the plaintiff corporation was extinguished

In light of the above facts, evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the public nature of non-party Nos. 1 and 3 of the court below's testimony, and the records of the defendant's writing on delivery of the party members Nos. 1 (Gift No. 3 of the court below's testimony) which are acknowledged to be genuine by non-party No. 4, non-party No. 2 of the court below's witness at the court, non-party No. 3 of the court below's witness at the court below's decision and the examination result of non-party No. 1 of the court below's non-party No. 1 (excluding the part of trust in the front and rear), and all purport of oral arguments, the plaintiff corporation is no more than 15 directors including the non-party No. 5 chairperson at the time of registration of incorporation, and it is acknowledged that the non-party No. 3 of the plaintiff foundation's management of the non-party No. 1 was put in operation with the chairman No. 3 as the non-party No. 1 and the defendant No. 2's. 3's. 1 and the defendant No. 98's.

However, since there was no dispute over the defendant's defense of prescriptive acquisition, the above Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the same Act presumed to have been established, and the record of the defendant's testimony and pleading as to the delivery of the door by the party members, in full view of the above witness Nos. 2 and 3's testimony and all of the arguments, the real estate was presented to the defendant in the meeting minutes of the board of directors of the plaintiff corporation which was decided to give a donation to the defendant, and the directors who agreed to agree with the defendant shall be seven in form, and the permission of this real estate donation was granted to the defendant on March 7, 1955 after the registration of transfer to the defendant was made in the above gift certificate, the above donation of the defendant was not negligent in believing that the above donation of the defendant was valid, and if it was recognized that the defendant had been openly occupied with his will for 10 years since its registration was made and there was no counter-proof, the registration of this case in the name of the defendant shall be valid.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal against the original judgment is dismissed without merit, and the conclusion is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)