주주총회결의의 효력을 다투는 소의 소송물 = The Object of a Lawsuit raised (by shareholders) to Illegal General Meeting of Shareholders

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The Korean Commercial Code prescribes three procedures of the lawsuit to illegal general meetings of shareholders. Those are actions for cancellation, nullity, and non-existence. A man who wants to raise a lawsuit against company must select the way of a action from those three procedures. That selection is very complicated and difficult especially to an ordinary person (shareholders). The theory about unified object of a lawsuit to illegal general meeting of shareholders is a practicable theory for ordinary person (shareholders) to raise a lawsuit against company. By that theory, those person (shareholders) who want to raise a lawsuit against company can describe the gist of claim comprehensively. Then the court will vindicate the case suitably. The judgment of the Korean Supreme Court (200145584) is probably upholding the theory about unified object of lawsuit (not exactly correspond to that). That judgment doesn`t correspond to precedents about the object of a lawsuit, called old theory about the object of a lawsuit. To my view, the new judgment is more suitable than old precedents. There are several shortcomings in the theory about unified object of a lawsuit. For example, by that theory, because the effect of excluding further litigation is wide, unpredictable effect will be imposed to the person concerned in the case. So it is desirable that the effect of excluding further litigation will be restrained within plaintiff`s anticipation.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "訴訟物의 識別基準에 관하여 - 韓國 및 獨逸의 大法 院判例를 中心으로" 8권

2 "株主總會決議의 瑕疵에 관한 小考" 38 (38):

3 "株主總會決議의 效力을 다투는 訴訟의 性質과 그 소송상 代表者" 박영사. 商事判例硏究 ⅰ :

4 "株主總會決議 不存在確認의 訴의 性質" (11466) :

5 "株主總會決議 不存在確認의 訴의 性質" 박영사.

6 "株主總會決議 不存在確認判決과 그 遡及效" 제18호

7 "株主總會決議 取消의 訴" 법원행정처.

8 "株主總會決意 不存在確認의 訴"

9 "株主總會 決議訴訟의 性質에 관한 諸學說" 28 (28): 1979.9.호

10 "信山社. 기타 본문 각주에 언급된 일본의 다수 논문."