The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the representative director J shall be appointed as a director on January 9, 2008, and appointed as the representative director on March 12, 2010, and the J shall appoint N as the representative director of the Plaintiff on July 26, 2010 and file the instant lawsuit from the court of first instance on November 10, 201. The J shall again appoint an attorney-at-law as the representative director on December 6, 201 and then file the instant appeal on behalf of the Plaintiff, and confirm that there exists no resolution from the general meeting of shareholders of Seoul Central District Court 208Du8171, May 9, 208 to appoint a director at the general meeting of shareholders against the Plaintiff.

“After the judgment was pronounced, the Seoul High Court dismissed as 2010Na13741, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da85768 Decided December 23, 2010 and the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive while the lawsuit of the first instance was pending in the court of first instance.

In the same way, according to the main text of Article 380 and Article 190 of the Commercial Act, the above Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap8171 Decided December 23, 2010, which became final and conclusive, lost the status of the representative director of the plaintiff, and the J lost the status of the representative director of the plaintiff. An attorney-at-law appointed by the J which has lost the status of the representative director shall file the appeal in this case on behalf of the plaintiff and shall not be deemed to have the authority to act as a representative in the original litigation procedure. Thus, all the litigation acts conducted by the attorney-at-lawO including the filing of the appeal in this case shall be null and void.

Meanwhile, Articles 59 (former part) and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis to a representative of a juristic person under Article 64 of the same Act, if there is any defect in granting a litigation capacity, authority of legal representation, or authority necessary for procedural acts, the court shall set forth a period and