회사의 조직변경에 관한 입법론적 고찰

이형규 ( Lee Hyeong-kyu ) 법조협회 2017 法曹 Vol.66 No.1

우리 상법은 사원의 책임과 내부조직이 유사한 인적회사 상호간과 물적회사 상호간 및 주식회사와 유한책임회사 간에만 조직변경을 인정하고 있다. 인적회사와 물적회사간의 조직변경은 허용되지 않는다. 결국 인적회사가 물적회사로 회사형태를 변경하려면 기존의 인적회사를 해산하여 청산을 한 후에 새로운 물적회사를 설립하거나 또는 기존의 인적회사가 물적회사 형태의 자회사를 설립하고 그 자회사가 기존의 인적회사를 흡수합병할 수밖에 없다(이른바 `사실상의 조직변경`). 이 경우에 실제로는 회사의 법적형태만 변경된 것이나 다름없지만, 그 절차가 복잡하고 회사의 설립과 합병에 따른 비용 및 조세를 부담하여야 하는 문제가 발생한다. 그런데 독일 조직재편법이나 일본 회사법에서는 경제환경의 변화에 대응하여 기업의 법적형태를 적합하게 개편할 수 있도록 인적회사와 물적회사 간의 조직변경을 허용하고 있다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 우리 상법상 조직변경에 관하여 살펴본 다음에, 일본 회사법과 독일 조직재편법상의 조직변경에 관한 입법례를 검토하고 이를 참고로 상법상 인적회사와 물적회사 간의 조직변경에 관하여 사원 및 회사채권자의 보호를 위한 조치와 함께 `사실상의 조직변경`에 의한 것보다 간편한 절차를 마련하는 입법방향을 제시하였다. 다만, 인적회사와 물적회사 간의 조직변경이 허용되더라도 주식회사를 선호하는 경향이 강한 우리나라에서는 합명회사나 합자회사가 주식회사로 조직변경하는 경우가 대부분일 것이다. 그러므로 우리 상법에서는 입법론적으로 우선 합명회사나 합자회사에서 주식회사로의 조직변경에 관한 규정을 두는 것이 바람직하다. 합명회사 또는 합자회사가 주식회사로 조직변경을 하게 되면 사원의 지위와 지분이 근본적으로 변경되므로 조직변경에 관한 주요사항을 기재한 조직변경계획서를 작성하여 원칙적으로 모든 사원의 동의를 얻도록 하되, 정관의 규정에 따라 다수결로 결의할 수도 있도록 하는 방안을 고려할 필요가 있다. 조직변경 후 주식회사의 자본금과 관련하여 조직변경 시에 발행하는 주식의 발행가액의 총액은 회사에 현존하는 순재산액을 초과하지 않도록 하는 규정을 두어야 한다. 인적회사의 무한책임사원이나 유한책임사원이 주주로 되면 책임이 완화되므로 기존 회사채권자의 보호를 위한 이의절차 규정이 필요하다. 또한 합명회사나 합자회사에서 주식회사로 조직변경을 하는 경우에 종전의 사원으로서 조직변경 후 주식회사의 주주가 된 자는 본점 소재지에서 조직변경의 등기를 하기 전에 생긴 회사채무에 대하여는 등기 후 일정기간 종전의 사원으로서의 책임을 지도록 하는 규정을 두어야 한다. 그 밖에 조직변경 후의 새로운 주식회사의 등기시점을 조직변경의 효력발생시기로 명확히 규정하고, 조직변경에 하자가 있는 경우에 조직변경무효의 소에 관한 규정을 둘 필요가 있다. Der Formwechsel stellt eine Anderung der Rechtsform bestimmter Rechtstrager bei Wahrung der rechtlichen Identitat dar, ohne dass ein Vermogensubergang stattgefunden hat. Der Formwechsel ist im Koreanischen Handelsgesetzbuch, im Japanischen Gesesellschatsgesetz und im Deutschen Umwandlungsgesetz unterschiedlich geregelt. Im Koreanischen Handelsgesetzbuch sind Gesellschaften einschliesslich der formwechselnden Umwandlung geregelt, die funf Rechtsformen der oHG, der KG, der AG, der GmbH und von Limited Liability Company (LLC) sind. Nach dem Koreanischen Handelsgesetzbuch ist nur der Formwechsel zwischen Personengesellschaten oder zwischen Kapitalgesellschaften moglich, aber zwischen Personengesellschaften und Kapitalgesellschaften nicht moglich. Nach dem neuen Japanischen Gesellschaftsgesetz von 2005 bedeutet der Formwechsel, dass ein Typus von der Anteilsgesellschaften(oHG, KG oder LLC) in eine Aktiengesellschaft oder eine Aktiengesellschaft in ein Typus von der Anteilsgesellschaften umgewandelt wird. Durch den Formwechsel kann eine Aktiengesellschaft in eine oHG, in eine KG oder in eine LLC umgewechselt werden, bzw. eine oHG, eine KG oder eine LLC in eine Aktiengesellschaft umgewechselt werden, Damit ist der Formwechsel zwischen der Rechtsform der Personnengesellschaft und derjenigen der Kapitalgesellschaft zugelassen. Aber die Anderung der Rechtsform zwischen Anteilsgesellschaften nicht durch den Formwechsel, sondern durch die Anderung des Gesellschaftsvertrags erfolgen, da die Regelungen uber inneren Gesellschaftsverhaltnisse gleich sind und nur uber die Haftungen der Gesellschafter unter- schiedlich sind. In Deutschland wurden die rechtliechen Rahmenbedingungen fur die Umstrukturierung von Unternehmen durch das Umwandlungsgesetz von 1994 wesentlich verandert. So eroffnet das Umwandlungsgesetz eine Vielzahl neuer Umwandlungsmoglichkeiten durch die Einbeziehung von Rechtstragern, denen erleiterte Umwandlungsmoglichkeiten bis dahin verschlossen waren. Nach dem Umwandlungsgesetz ist der Formwechsel zwischen der Rechtsform der Personnengesellschaft und derjenigen der Kapitalgesellschaft zugelassen. Der Formwechsel einer Personengesellschaft in eine andere Rechtsform der Personengesellschaft kann nicht nach den Regeln des Umwandlungsgesetz, sondern nach den allgemeinen Vorschriften erfolgen (z.B. Formwechsel einer KG in eine OHG durch Anderung des Gesellschaftsvertrags), Im Unterschied zu dem japanischen Gesellschaftsgesetz und dem deutschen Umwandlungsgesetz ist der Formwechsel zwischen der Rechtsform der Personnengesellschaft und derjenigen der Kapitalgesellschaft im koreanischen Handelsgesetzbuch nicht zugelassen. Um die Gestaltungsmoglichkeiten beim Formwechsel zu verbessern, soll der Formwechsel zwischen Personnengesellschaften und Kapitalgesellschaften gesetzlich in Korea eingefurt werden.

유럽회사법상(會社法上) 『유럽경제이익단체(經濟利益團體)』

이형규 ( Hyeong Kyu Lee ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 1992 법학논총 Vol.9 No.-

어음,수표(手票)의 피사취(被詐取)

이형규 ( Hyeong Kyu Lee ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 1993 법학논총 Vol.10 No.-

사법(私法) : 중소기업기본법상(中小企業基本法上) 중소기업자(中小企業者)의 범위(範圍)

이형규 ( Hyeong Kyu Lee ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 1995 법학논총 Vol.12 No.-

RFID-WiFi 이종 네트워크 환경에서 근거리 고속 전송 단말을 위한 MAC 프로토콜

이형규(Hyeong Kyu Lee),김윤민(Yunmin Kim),이태진(Tae-Jin Lee) 한국통신학회 2016 한국통신학회 학술대회논문집 Vol.2016 No.6

배초향 지하부의 Diterpene 성분과 그 세포독성

이형규(Hyeong Kyu Lee),변순정(Soon Jung Byon),오세량(Se Ryang Oh),김정일(Jung Il Kim),김영호(Young Ho Kim),이정옥(Chong Ock Lee) 한국생약학회 1995 생약학회지 Vol.25 No.4

A new diterpene, agastanol[l] with dehydroagastol[2] was isolated from the root of Agastache rugosa, and their structures were elucidated by chemical and instrumental analysis. Agastanol[1], its derivatives, agastanone[3] and methylagastanol [5], and dehydroagastol[2] showed cytotoxic activities against in vitro human cancer cell lines. Agastanol[1] showed weak antifungal activity against Trichophyton rubrum.

한양대 법과대학 60년 및 법학전문대학원 10년의 역사적 발자취

이형규(Lee, Hyeong-Kyu) 한양법학회 2020 漢陽法學 Vol.31 No.1

Hanyang University College of Law was established in 1959 as the Department of Law, College of Politics and Economics, and it marks the 60th anniversary this year, 2019. At the time, when the status of the college of law was determined by the number of students passed in the judicial examination, Hanyang University Department of Law, a latecomer, which was founded 10 years later than that of major universities in Korea, did not produce judicial examination passers until 1975, more than 10 years after it was established. However, since the late 1970s, the Hanyang University College of Law has grown rapidly enough to rank the second to the fifth in the number of people who passed judicial examinations among the universities in Korea. The reason for this rapid growth is primarily due to the class to prepare for the judicial examinations, which the university headquarters fully supported to select outstanding students as special scholarship students for the College of Law. Hanyang University has produced a total of 1,243 lawyers through the judicial examination (including military judicial officers" examination) (including 17 passers outside the College of Law). They play an important role in legal profession, politics, government and academia. Among those who have passed the judicial examinations from the Hanyang University College of Law, there are the Supreme Court Justice, the Chief of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, the Chief of the High Court and the Chief of the District Court, and the Deputy Chief of the Supreme Prosecutor"s Office, the Chief of the High Prosecutor"s Office, the Chief of the District Prosecutor"s Office, and the Secretary of Justice of the President"s Office. Many Hanyang University College of Law students have passed also administrative examinations, diplomacy examinations or legislative examinations and have entered the bureaucracy. In academia, more than 90 graduates from Hanyang University College of Law have worked as law professors in universities in Korea. Meanwhile, Hanyang University School of Law was opened in March 2009 under the new legal education system. There are currently 41 full-time professors at work, and former Supreme Court Justice Yang Chang-soo and former Constitutional Judge Seo Ki-seok are chair professors. Hanyang University School of Law has a total of 754 graduates (attainment of master"s degrees) by 2019, and a total of 662 people passed the lawyer examination. Graduates from the School of Law also are showing outstanding abilities in a variety of fields including courts, prosecutors" offices, law firms and large corporations. In conclusion, both the Hanyang University College of Law with a history of 60 years and its School of Law with a history of 10 years have greatly contributed to the development of law through academic research by professors, and more than 9,000 graduates have demonstrated outstanding abilities in the legal, political, administrative and academic fields. Accordingly, the Hanyang University College of Law and School of Law have established themselves as prestigious law school and can be said to have greatly contributed to the development of the country.

대학의 수업목적 저작물 이용 보상금제도의 문제점과 개선방안

이형규 ( Hyeong Kyu Lee ) 한국법정책학회 2013 법과 정책연구 Vol.13 No.1

저작권법상 초?중?고등학교와 대학교 및 국가나 지방자치단체가 운영하는 교육기관과 교육지원기관은 수업목적상 필요한 경우에 저작권자의 허락 없이 저작물의 일부분을 이용할 수 있다. 다만 초?중?고등학교를 제외하고 대학 등의 저작물 이용자는 문화체육관광부장관이 고시하는 기준에 따른 보상금을 지급하여야 하며, 보상금을 받을 권리는 문화체육관광부장관이 지정한 단체를 통하여만 행사되어야 한다. 이 제도를 ‘수업목적 저작물 이용 보상금제도’라고 한다. 문화체육관광부는 이 제도의 시행으로 대학들이 수업에서 저작권 침해 걱정 없이 국내외 모든 종류의 저작물을 다양한 방법으로 학생들에게 제공할 수 있어 교육품질을 제고할 수 있을 것이라고 밝혔다. 그러나 문화체육관광부의 주장과는 달리 수업목적 저작물 이용 보상금 제도는 많은 문제점을 내포하고 있다. 우선 징수단체를 통해서만 저작물 이용 보상금에 관한 권리를 행사할 수 있도록 하고, 징수단체로 하여금 미분배 보상금을 사용할 수 있도록 한 저작권법 제25조의 규정은 저작권자의 권리행사를 과도하게 제한하고 저작권자의 사유재산권을 침해하는 것으로서 위헌의 소지가 있으므로 폐지되어야 한다. 나아가 교육의 공익적 측면을 고려할 때 초?중?고등학교와 마찬가지로 대학에 대하여도 저작물 이용 보상금 징수를 면제하는 것으로 저작권법 제25조를 개정하는 것이 바람직하다. 그리고 대학의 수업목적 저작물 이용 보상금제도와 관련하여, 보상금 기준의 불합리성, 보상금 산정에 관한 종량방식과 포괄방식의 타당성 결여, 대학이 수업목적으로 저작물을 복사업소에서 복사하여 이용하는 경우 복사료에 포함된 저작권사용료의 지급과 저작물 이용 보상금의 지급에 따른 저작권료의 이중지급, 징수단체의 저작권자에 대한 보상금 분배능력 결여, 보상금 징수대상기관 중 대학에 대하여만 보상금 지급을 강요하는 법집행의 형평성 위반 등 다양한 문제점이 지적되고 있다. 그러므로 수업목적 저작물 이용 보상금 제도를 유지하는 경우에도, 저작물 이용 보상금 기준의 합리적 개선과 징수 및 분배에 관한 제도적 보완이 필요하다. This is a study reviewing problems of compensation system for using a work for the purpose of education in university and proposing an improvement plan. According to the Korean Copyright Law, Elementary·Middle·High school, University and educational institutions and educational support institutions operated by the national or local government may use a part of a work without permission of the owner of author`s property rights. But a university or other institutions except Elementary·Middle·High school who intends to exploit a work shall pay compensation according to the criteria for compensation as determined and published by the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the right to be compensated shall be exercised by an organization which is designated by the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism. This system is called ‘Compensation system for using a work for the purpose of education’. The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism clarified that enforcement of this system may improve the quality of education facilitating universities to provide all kinds of domestic and foreign works to students in varying ways in classes without worrying about infringement of copyright. But different to the position of the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism, ‘Compensation system for using a work for the purpose of education’ has many problems. First, article 25 of the Korean Copyright Law which enables to exercise the right to be compensated only through a collection organization and enables the collection organization to use undistributed compensations shall be abolished because it is likely to be unconstitutional excessively limiting owner`s exercise of intellectual property rights and trespassing on private property rights. Furthermore article 25 the Korean Copyright Law shall be deemed necessary to be amended to exempt payment of compensation for using a work at universities as with Elementary·Middle·High school in the consideration of appropriately promoting the public interest of education. There are varieties of problems in relation with the compensation system for using a work for the purpose of education at university; These problems include irrationality of criteria of compensation, lack of validity on meter-rate system and comprehensive system of computing compensation, duplicate payment paying royalty included in copy cost and compensation for using a work when copying a work at a reprographer to use for a class at university, lack of ability of collection organization to distribute compensation to the owner of author`s property rights, violation of equity of law enforcement imposing compensation only to universities out of target of collection. Therefore, it shall be required a rational improvement of criteria and a systematic complement for collection and distribution of compensation system for using a work for the purpose of education even when the compensation system is continuously kept.

회사법의 과거와 현재 그리고 미래

이형규 ( Hyeong-kyu Lee ) 한국법정책학회 2021 법과 정책연구 Vol.21 No.2

우리나라에서 시행된 최초의 근대적인 회사에 관한 기본법은 일제강점기인 1912년 “조선민사령”에 의하여 의용된 일본 상법 제2편이었다. 이 일본상법은 1861년의 보통독일상법전(ADHGB)을 모방하여 1899년에 제정·시행한 이른바, 일본 신상법이다. 이 상법은 일제강점기 동안뿐만 아니라 1945년 해방 이후에도 우리 상법이 시행되기 전인 1962년 말까지 계속 한국에서 의용되었다. 1948년 우리 정부가 수립된 후 법전편찬위원회가 설치되어 상법의 제정을 위한 작업에 착수하였다. 그러나 6·25전쟁과 계속된 정치적 불안정 등으로 10여년이 지나도록 결실을 보지 못하였다. 그러던 중에 1961년 5.16 군사구테타로 집권한 군사정부의 「구법령정리사업」에 따라, 우리 상법은 1962년 l월 20일 법률 제1000호로 공포되었고, 1963년 1월 1일부터 시행되었다. 우리 상법의 편제는 대체로 그동안 의용되었던 일본 상법과 유사하였다. 다만 “제2편 상행위”와 “제3편 회사”의 위치가 서로 바뀌었다. 그리고 상법 제3편에 규정된 회사법의 특징은 독일 상법을 계수한 의용상법을 토대로 하면서 미국 회사법상의 여러 제도를 수용한 것이다. 우리 회사법이 수용한 미국 회사법상의 제도 중 대표적인 것은 주식회사의 이사회제도와 함께 이사회의 권한을 강화하고 주주총회와 감사의 권한을 축소한 것이다. 주주총회의 권한축소에 대한 대응책으로 주주의 보호를 위하여 유지청구제도와 대표소송제도 등을 신설하였다. 그리고 수권자본제도의 채택과 더불어 자본금충실을 기하기 위하여 주금의 전납주의를 취하였다. 1962년에 제정된 상법은 그 시행 이후 20여 차례에 걸쳐서 개정되었다. 상법 중 회사 편이 가장 빈번하게 개정되어서, 2020년 12월 말까지 14 차례의 개정이 이루어졌다. 지속적인 개정작업의 결과, 우리 회사법의 내용은 대체로 국제적 수준에 접근하게 되었다. 특히 1990년대 말부터 글로벌 스탠더드에 부합하도록 여러 차례의 개정이 이루어졌는데, 이는 대부분 미국의 회사법제를 수용하는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 편제 면에서 회사법은 여전히 상법전 중의 한 편(編)의 형태를 유지하고 있다. 상법전은 제1편 총칙, 제2편 상행위, 제3편 회사, 제4편 보험, 제5편 해상 및 제6편 항공운송 등 6편으로 구성되어 있지만, 각 편의 규정들이 반드시 하나의 법전에 포함되어야 할 공통된 법원리를 찾아보기 어렵다. 특히, 회사법의 단체법적 특성을 고려하고, 회사 편 규정 상호간 및 회사 편과 회사에 관한 특별법 규정 간의 상충과 부조화를 해소하기 위해서는 우리 상법 중에서 제3편 회사에 관한 규정을 분리하여 단행법으로 제정하는 것이 바람직하다. 회사법의 단행법화는 미국, 영국, 독일, 일본 등 선진국 회사법의 입법경향에도 부합된다. 회사법을 단행법으로 제정하는 경우에 모든 회사를 규율하는 통합법의 형태를 갖추는 것이 바람직하다. 회사형태 중에서 가장 많이 이용되고 있는 주식회사를 중심으로 규정하는 것이 수범자의 입장에서 이해하기 쉽고 사용하기 편리할 것이다. The first modern Company Law to be enforced in Korea was “Part Ⅱ Company” of the Japanese Commercial Code, which was adopted by the “Chosun Civil Ordinance” in 1912 during the Japanese forced occupation period. The Japanese Commercial Code was enacted and enforced in 1899 in imitation of the General German Commercial Code (ADHGB) of 1861. This Commercial Code continued to be used in Korea during the japanese Forced occupation period and even after the liberation from japanese occupation in 1945 until the end of 1962, before the Korean Commercial Code was enforced. After the establishment of the Korean government in 1948, a law compilation committee was established to work on drafting the Korean Commercial Code. However, due to the Korean War and the continuing political instability, the intended Code did not come to fruition for more than 10 years. Meanwhile, according to the “Old Laws Clearance Project” of the military government that came to power in a military coup on May 16, 1961, the Korean Commercial Code was promulgated as Law No. 1000 on January 20, 1962, and came into effect on January 1, 1963. The Korean Commercial Code was almost similar to the Japanese Commercial Code that had been used in Korea in its composition and content. However, the positions of the “Part II Commercial Activities” and the “Part III Company” of the Korean Commercial Code were changed. The “Part III Company” of the Korean Commercial Code is characterized by being based on the German commercial law and accepting various systems under the American corporate law. The important point of the American corporate law systems accepted by Korean Company Law was the introduction of a board of directors system, which simultaneously strengthens the powers of the board of directors and reduces the powers of shareholders' meetings and auditors. As countermeasures to the reduction of the power of the general shareholders' meeting, the right of injunction and the derivative suit system were established to protect shareholders. In addition to the adoption of the authorized capital system, the principle of full payment of shares was applied to ensure the capital sufficiency. The Korean Commercial Code of 1962 has been amended more than 20 times since its enforcement. The “Part III Company” of the Commercial Code was the most frequently amended, with 14 revisions made by the end of December 2020. As a result of the continuous work on amendments, the content of Korean company law has largely approached global standards. In particular, several revisions have been made since the late 1990s to conform to global standards, most of which have been found to accept the American corporate law system. However, in the composition of the code, the Korean company law still retains the form of one part of the Korean Commercial Code. It is important to note that this Commercial Code is composed of six parts, but it is difficult to find a common legal principle on which the provisions of six parts must be included in a single commercial code. Also in consideration of the characteristics of the company law as a law that governs an organization, and in order to resolve conflicts and inconsistencies between company provisions in the Commercial Code and between the Commercial Code and other company-related special laws, it is desirable to separate “Part Ⅲ company” regulations in the Korean Commercial Code and enact a single Company Act. Such enactment is consistent with the legislative trend of corporate law in developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. In the case of enacting the Company Act, it is desirable to have a form of integrated law that regulates all companies. From the user's perspective, it would be easy to understand and use to define the most commonly used stock company among the types of companies.

감사·감사위원의 선임·해임 시 의결권 제한에 관한 검토

이형규(Lee, Hyeong-Kyu) 한양법학회 2021 漢陽法學 Vol.32 No.3

This thesis examines the history and contents of the restrictions on shareholders’ voting rights when appointing or dismissing auditors or members of the audit committee under the Commercial Act, as well as their problems. Since the enactment of the Korean Commercial Act in 1962, in order to suppress the influence of large shareholders, voting rights have been restricted for stocks owned by more than 3% of the total number of issued stocks at the time of appointment of auditors. And after the introduction of the audit committee system in the revised Commercial Act in 1999, through several amendments to the Commercial Act, currently the voting rights of shareholders are restricted in various ways at the general meeting of shareholders regarding the appointment and dismissal of auditors, standing auditors, audit committee members who are outside directors, and audit committee members who are not outside directors, depending on whether they are listed or not and the size of the company. However, even if the Commercial Act restricts the voting rights of shareholders at the time of appointment or dismissal of auditors or members of the audit committee in order to secure independence of auditors or members of the audit committee from the major shareholder, there is no reasonable basis for restricting voting rights to 3% of the total number of issued shares, and it violates the principle of one share, one vote and the principle of majority vote to restrict the exercise of voting rights at 3% of the total number of issued shares regardless of the number of shares or the holding ratio owned by shareholders, and is excessive restrictions on the exercise of property rights by shareholders. The Commercial Act requires that audit committee members of a listed company with total assets of 100 billion won or more be appointed at a general meeting of shareholders. However, since the audit committee members under the Commercial Act are members of a committee within the board of directors, the election of audit committee members at a general meeting of shareholders does not match the legal nature of the audit committee. According to the Commercial Act, when an auditor or a standing auditor of a listed company is appointed or dismissed, or an audit committee member who is not an outside director is appointed or dismissed in a listed company with total assets of 100 billion won or more, the voting rights of the shares in excess of 3% of the total number of issued shares held by the largest shareholder and its specially related persons, cannot be exercised. However, the restriction on voting rights of shares exceeding 3% of the total number of issued shares owned by the largest shareholder and its specially related persons may result in reverse discrimination of the largest shareholder by not applying to other shareholders. In addition, the Commercial Act requires listed companies with total assets of 100 billion won or more to elect at least one director who will be a member of the audit committee by a separate election method. However, restricting the voting rights of shareholders of shares exceeding 3% of the total number of issued shares by a separate election method when appointing a director who becomes an audit committee member excessively restricts the exercise of property rights and distorts the control rights based on the shareholder’s equity ratio. Shares owned by shareholders exceeding 3% of the total number of issued shares at the time of appointment of an auditor are included in the total number of issued shares, but are not included in the number of voting rights of shareholders present (Article 371 (2) Commercial Act). If the shareholders own more than 78% of the total issued stock, it is difficult to meet the quorum required for the appointment of an auditor. In this case, the inability to meet the quorum for a general resolution is not only due to the current Commercial Act regulations on the calcula