단체의 결의 무효확인판결의 제3자에 대한 효력

A judgment affirming the nullification or the non-existence, of a resolution of a corporation's shareholders' meeting, is effective to any person(Commercial Act Article 380, 190 main sentence). Could this provision be apply mutatis mutandis to the resolutions of other organizations' general meetings and board meetings (no matter whether the organizations have juristic personality or not)? The decisions of Supreme Court of Korea are in the negative. But if the precedents are applied, legal relations as to the organizations would be confused. For example, when B, who is a director of a educational foundation, filed an action against the foundation for affirming the nullification of the foundation's resolution in which A was elected as a director of the foundation, and won the case, the judgment is effective only to the parties(A and the foundation). Because the judgment is not effective to A, A's directorship could not be denied. In addition, the conflict between registration and legal status, and that between the judgment and provisional disposition( which is effective to any person), can not be avoided. Even if there is no provision, a judgment affirming the nullification or the non-existence, of a resolution of other organizations could be effective to any person, by applying mutatis mutandis of Commercial Act Article 380, 190 main sentence. And other provisions, such as Article 186(Exclusive Jurisdiction), 187(Public Notice of Filing of Action), 188(Combined Hearing of Actions), 191(Liability of Plaintiff who Lost), 377(Duty to Furnish Security of Shareholder Filing Action), 378(Registration of Revocation of Resolution), should be applied mutatis mutandis. Civil Procedure Act Article 83(Intervention into Co-Litigation) should be allowed to possible plaintiffs, and Article 78 of that act (Supplementary Intervention alike of Co-Litigation), to the third person.