Whether a person who acquired registered shares but failed to complete the change of entry in the register of shareholders is eligible to apply for the suspension of performance of duties of directors, etc. and appointment of acting directors

The transfer of registered shares does not oppose the company unless the name and address of the acquisitor are stated in the register of shareholders, and even if the transfer cannot be asserted against the company, so long as the transferor is merely a creditor of the company, and the fact that the transfer was taken over is merely a direct effect on the company, barring special circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation in seeking confirmation of absence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of the company, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation in seeking confirmation of absence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of the company, and therefore, it cannot be said that the acting director is eligible to apply for

Articles 335, 337(1), 380, and 407 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 1114 decided May 17, 1962 (Civil II Article 335(4)470, 6694 of the Commercial Act)

Ook forest et al.

Maximum Uniforms et al.

1. The applicant shall dismiss the application for an indoor forest;

2. Subject to deposit of KRW 3,00,000 as security within five days from the date of receipt of the original copy of the judgment in this case, the respondent's highest return as representative director and director of the above company until the final and conclusive judgment on the merits of the claim for confirmation of existence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders (No. 86dahap3818) between the applicant Lee Jae-chul and the new call-si Co., Ltd., other than the applicant, the respondent's best return as the representative director and director of the above company, the same order of Respondent, and the same order of Respondent Kim Jong-so, as director of each of the above companies, shall not perform their duties as auditors of the above

3. During the period of the suspension of the performance of duties above, the representative director and the acting representative of Seongdong-dong 29-22 dwelling in Seongdong-dong 29-22 of Seongdong-gu Seoul, and the director and the acting representative of the director shall be appointed as the head of Dong-dong 132-41 dwelling in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the Myeon-dong 132-41 dwelling in Seongbuk-dong 716-54 living in Seongbuk-dong 716-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Dobong-gu, Seoul, and the head of Dong-dong 369-31 dwelling in Mapo-dong

4. Of the application cost, the portion arising between the applicant's office forest and the respondent shall be borne by the same applicant, and the portion arising between the applicant's office and the respondent shall be borne by the respondent.

In the case of Paragraph (2) of this Article, the remainder of Paragraph (3) of this Article and Paragraph (3) of this Article shall be borne by the respondent.

1. A. First of all, the applicant Ook-si held a provisional shareholders' meeting on August 21, 1986 of new call-si Co., Ltd. other than the applicant for application (hereinafter the non-applicant company) on August 21, 1986, although the provisional shareholders' meeting was not convened, the respondent voluntarily held a provisional shareholders' meeting of the company other than the applicant, and voluntarily withdraws from the representative director's representative director's choice, director Kim Jong-si, the same le-dong, the same le-dong, and the auditor's le-dong, respectively, and the respondent's highest le-mail, the same mar, the same mar, the same mar, the same mar, the same mar, and the non-applicant's mar as the auditor, and the defendant's representative director, director or auditor after completing the registration of change in the register of the company other than the applicant company. Thus, the applicant asserted that the above applicant's provisional shareholders' meeting cannot be held as a valid shareholder's resolution as well as the above applicant's interests.

Therefore, the issue of whether an applicant for temporary injunction is eligible for the above provisional injunction is determined according to the above applicant's qualified status in a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the above provisional injunction, which is the main issue of the provisional injunction. Thus, if the above applicant can bring an action for confirmation of existence of the general shareholders' meeting, which is the case of the above provisional injunction, then each shareholder is bound by the resolution, so if the resolution of the general shareholders' meeting is valid, the shareholder shall have the interest to seek confirmation of non-existence of the resolution. Furthermore, the lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the general shareholders' meeting shall not be limited to the plaintiff's 10 shareholders' right or non-existence of the above provisional injunction, and it shall not be deemed that there is a legitimate interest in the company's 40 shareholders' shareholder's transfer from the above non-resident's 16 shareholders' meeting, unless the resolution of the general shareholders' meeting specifically infringes on the third party's rights or legal status, and it shall not be viewed that the transfer of shares is not directly affected the transferee's right to the company.

B. Meanwhile, the respondent asserted that the applicant's Lee Jae-chul was registered as a shareholder in the shareholder registry of the company other than the applicant as of August 21, 1986, but it is merely a person registered in the shareholder registry of the company other than the applicant, not a real shareholder, but merely a person registered in the shareholder registry of the company other than the applicant for the application for provisional disposition of this case. Thus, if the applicant's Lee Jae-chul is registered as a shareholder in the shareholder registry of the company other than the applicant for provisional disposition of this case as the respondent, the above applicant is presumed to be a shareholder of the company other than the applicant for the application for provisional disposition of this case, and the respondent who denies the shareholder's right should prove this in order to reverse it. Thus, the respondent's partial entries in the No. 12 of the No. 12 of the lawsuit as shown in the above argument of the respondent cannot be easily trusted and there is no evidence to acknowledge

2. 다음으로, 신청외 회사가 1979.2.20. 택시여객자동차운송사업 등을 목적으로 자본금 10,000,000원, 주식 총수 20,000주(1주의 금액은 금 500원)로 하여 설립되었다가 같은 해 2.24.에 자본금 200,000,000원, 발행주식 총수 400,000주로 변경등기를 마친 주식회사인 사실과 1986.3.월쯤에 신청외 장옥련이 신청외 회사의 대표이사로, 신청외 김동찬, 같은 김택희,같은 이철휘, 같은 차재균, 같은 이덕우, 같은 윤익순이 각 이사로, 신청외 안강승이 감사로 취임하여 신청외 회사의 업무를 집행하여 오던 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 소갑 제3호증(정관, 소갑 제13호증의 6과 같다), 소갑 제4호증(주주총회소집통지서), 소갑 제5호증의 1,2(각 판결, 소갑 제13호증의 7,8과 같다), 소갑 제6호증(주주총회소집통지서, 소갑 제13호증의 9와 같다), 소갑 제7호증(결정), 소갑 제8호증(해제신청서), 소갑 제9호증의 1,2(주주명부 표지 및 내용, 소갑 제13호증의 10과 같다), 소갑 제10호증(회사등기부등본, 소갑 제13호증의 5와 같다), 소갑 제11호증(임시주주총회의사록), 소갑 제12호증(증인신문조서등본), 소갑 제13호증의 12(주주총회의사록), 13,14(각 이사회의사록), 35(1차변론조서), 40(증인신문조서), 을 제1호증(주주명부표시 및 내용)의 각 기재(다만 소갑 제12호증의 기재 중 앞에서 믿지 않은 부분 제외)와 증인 전화봉의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면, 신청외 회사의 정기주주총회는 매결산기가 끝난 후 두 달 이내에 소집되고 그 회의에서는 미리 안건으로 정하여 통지한 회의의 목적사항 이외에는 결의를 하지 못하도록 정관에 규정되어 있어(제16조), 신청외 회사는 1986.3.14. 이사회를 개최하여 85년도 결산보고 및 임원해임과 개선을 안건으로 하는 정기주주총회를 같은 해 3.31. 개최하기로 의결하였으나, 당시 신청외 회사의 대표이사이던 신청외 장옥련은 같은 해 3.17. 신청외 차재균을 비롯한 17명의 주주들에게 주주총회소집통고서를 발송함에 있어서 그 목적사항을 85년도 결산보고 및 임원보선과 기타 사항으로만 기재하였는데, 신청외 회사의 주주인 신청외 장동찬 외 9명은 1986.3.31. 신청외 회사의 회의실에서 신청외 회사의 정기주주총회를 개최하여 총회소집통지서에 기재된 회의의 목적사항 이외에도 대표이사 장옥련, 이사 김동찬, 같은 김택회, 같은 이철휘, 같은 차재균, 같은 이덕우, 같은 윤익순, 감사 안강승을 각 해임하고, 신청외 권택연, 같은 김택회, 같은 이철휘, 같은 윤익순, 같은 김동찬을 각 이사로, 신청외 이태진을 각 감사로 선임한다라는 내용의 결의를 하고 그 의사록을 만들어 같은 해 4.1. 그 내용대로 신청외 회사의 등기부에 변경등기를 마친 사실, 이에 신청외 회사의 대표이사이던 신청외 장옥련은 서울지방법원 북부지원에 86가합343호 로 신청외 회사를 상대로 위 정기주주총회결의취소의 소를 제기함과 동시에 같은 지원에 86카4428호 로 대표이사로 선임된 신청외 권택연과 감사로 선임된 신청외 이태진 등을 상대로 직무집행정지 및 대행자선임가처분신청을 하여 그 결과 1986.8.20. 같은 지원으로 부터 위 정기주주총회결의는 절차상에 하자있는 위법한 결의라는 이유로 그 취소를 명하는 판결이 선고됨과 동시에 대표이사 권택연, 감사 이태진의 각 직무집행을 정지하고 대표이사의 직무대행자로 신청외 정정근을, 감사의 직무대행자로 신청외 김병원을 각 선임한다는 내용의 가처분판결이 선고된 사실, 그런데 신청외 회사의 대표이사로 등재된 신청외 권택연은 위 소송에서 자신들에게 불리한 판결이 선고되리라는 것을 예상하고 그 판결의 집행을 모면할 목적으로 위 판결들이 선고되기 하루전날인 1986.8.19.에 같은 해 8.21. 13:30 영동 목화예식장 건너편에 있는 신정이라는 음식점에서 임원 개선을 목적으로 한 임시주주총회를 개최한다는 내용의 임시주주총회 소집통지서를 일부주주들에게 우송하고 일부주주들에게는 구두로 이를 알린 사실, 그리고 같은 해 8.20. 위 북부지원에서 위와 같은 판결이 선고되자 1986.8.21. 신청외 권택연의 이러한 계책에 동조하는 별지 제1목록 기재와 같이 발행주식 총수의 24퍼센트에 해당하는 주식을 가진 피신청인 최경복 등 주주 7명이 위 음식점에 모여 식사를 하면서 임시주주총회나 이사회의 의사절차의 진행이나 결의가 전혀 없었는데도 불구하고 마치 그 자리에서 신청외 회사의 임시주주총회와 이사회를 각 소집 개최하여 대표이사 권택연, 이사 김택회, 같은 이철휘, 같은 윤익순, 같은 김동찬, 감사 이태진은 각 사임하고 피신청인 최경복, 같은 최경식, 같은 배관순, 같은 명노문, 신청외 서석범을 각 이사로, 피신청인 김명순을 감사로 각 선임한다는 내용의 임시주주총회결의와 이사인 피신청인 최경복을 대표이사로 선임한다는 내용의 이사회결의가 있었던 것처럼 그 각 의사록을 만들어 같은 해 8.22. 그 내용대로 신청외 회사의 등기부에 변경등기를 마친 사실, 그후 피신청인들은 신청외 회사의 대표이사, 이사 내지 감사로 행세하면서 신청외 회사의 업무를 처리하고 있는 사실, 한편, 1986.8.21. 현재 신청외 회사의 주주 및 각 주주별 소유 주식수는 별지 제2목록 기재와 같은 사실, 도한 신청외 회사의 정관에 의하면 임시주주총회는 필요에 따라 이사회 결의 그 밖에 법규에 정한 바에 의하여 이를 소집하고 (제16조), 주주총회의 결의는 법령 및 정관에 따로 규정이 있는 것을 제외하고는 발행주식총수의 과반수에 해당하는 주식을 가진 주주의 출석으로 그 의결권의 과반수로써 의결되며 (18조), 신청외 회사에서는 이사 3명이상 감사 1명이상을 두되 이들은 주주총회에서 선임하고 (제21조 제1항), 이사의 선임은 발행주식총수의 반이상의 주식을 가진 주주가 출석하여 그 의결권의 반이상으로써 결의하며 감사의 선임은 발행주식총수 100분의 3을 넘는 수의 주식을 가진 주주는 그 넘는 주식에 관하여는 의결권을 행사하지 못하고(같은 조 2,3항), 이사는 이사회를 조직하고 대표이사의 선임과 회사의 업무집행에 관한 중요사항을 결의하며 (제25조), 그 이외에 정관에 규정되지 아니한 사항은 주주총회결의와 상법 기타 법령에 따르도록 규정되어 있는 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증없다.

According to this, the above provisional shareholders' resolution of August 21, 1986 was not convened as prescribed by the articles of incorporation and law of the company other than the applicant company, but was not held or passed the above meeting. However, it is clear that the above provisional shareholders' resolution does not exist since the execution of each judgment rendered in the branch court of the Seoul District Court on August 20, 1986, as of August 20, 1986, and seven shareholders, such as the respondent with the non-applicant representative director's choice and the shares equivalent to 24 percent of the total number of shares issued by the company other than the applicant, were made only as if the minutes were the same as the above resolution was made on the same day, and registration was completed in accordance with the contents. Thus, it is evident that the above provisional shareholders' resolution was not held.

In this regard, the respondent cannot raise an objection to the above resolution of the provisional shareholders' meeting since the applicant's second letter attended the above provisional shareholders' meeting and consented to all the above resolution. Accordingly, the above applicant's second letter of provisional disposition is unreasonable (the respondent's second letter of objection, due to these circumstances, does not have any interest in making the application of this case. However, if there are such circumstances, the respondent's second letter of objection does not go against the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of gold opinion, rather than that the applicant's second letter of objection does not have any interest in making the application of this case, so the respondent's second letter of objection should be judged to have made the above objection to this purpose. Thus, as seen above, as seen in the above facts, the respondent's second letter of objection does not coincide between the above places where the above provisional shareholders' meeting should be held, so the respondent's second letter of objection does not need to be judged further.

Therefore, according to the above resolution of the above provisional shareholders' general meeting that does not exist as above, the respondent's highest number of Respondents shall be registered as directors who are representative directors, the maximum number of Respondents, the same piping order, each director, and the order of Respondent Kim Jong-soo as if they were appointed respectively as auditors. If such Respondents continue to perform the duties of the representative director of the company outside the application, the director of the company outside the application, the director or the auditor of the company outside the application, even if the Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent's Respondent

3. Thus, the applicant Yok-ro cannot be qualified to become the applicant of this case. Thus, the applicant Yok-ro's application of this case is dismissed as the applicant's application of this case is inappropriate, and it is reasonable to reject it as the representative director and director of the Respondent, the respondent's most light light light, the same piping system, and each director of the same name labor union, and the application of this case of this case is reasonable. Thus, the applicant Yok-ro's request of this case to suspend the performance of duties as the auditor of the Respondent Kim Jong-dong-dong, Seoul as the representative director of the company other than the applicant of this case, the applicant Yin-ro and the non-applicant company deposit 3,00,000 won as security within 5 days from the date of receipt of the original copy of the judgment of this case. This case's request of this case is based on the condition that the applicant Yok-ro and the non-applicant company deposit 3,000,000 won as the 3.

Judges' inducement (Presiding Judge) Doing to the highest punishment