이사를 해임하는 주주총회결의의 효력정지가처분

There is a problem whether the director may represent provisional disposition of the effect stop of the resolution that to a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders in a case with a flaw of dismissing a director. It’s difficult to look for an court cases about such problem. It may be used by a practical business affair, but the one which isn't studied about that is the current state. Japan also has a company suit and a provisional injunction system similar to Korea, but it's difficult to look for a court case about that. However, the court case which grants such provisional disposition of the effect stop of the resolution recently has come out in Japan. Provisional disposition of the effect stop of the resolution is considered while comparing this study with Japanese law. After this study took up a Japanese court case about the provisional disposition of the effect stop of the resolution first and next considered permission of the provisional disposition, the right to be secured and necessity to secure was argued. A problem of a company law and a problem of litigation law are included in this problem of the permission, but this study work is made the center of the latter. The Civil Enforcement law is a prescribed provisional disposition and when satisfying the important matter, this Provisional disposition of the effect stop of the resolution is granted. A unfairly dismissed director may use these remedy means naturally. It's easy for right to be secured to be admitted in the important matter for this provisional disposition to be granted, but more necessity to secure should be argued. When many court cases about that comes out, the other important matter would also activate the argument.