회의개최금지가처분의 피보전권리와 금지청구권

In practice, various forms of preliminary injunctions prohibiting meetings and resolutions are frequently being filed in relation to disputes within organizations. These include not only injunctions prohibiting the convening of shareholders' meetings in stock companies, but also injunctions prohibiting meetings of corporations under the Civil Code and unincorporated associations. However, there has been a lack of in-depth academic discussion on whether such preliminary injunctions prohibiting the convening of meetings are permissible, and if so, what should be identified as the right to be preserved or the subject matter of the main lawsuit. This article aims to examine in detail the discussions in Korea, Germany, and Japan regarding the permissibility of preliminary injunctions prohibiting the convening of meetings and the nature of the right to be preserved and to present the view that the right to be preserved should be regarded as the right of association members to exclude interference. Regarding the admissibility of preliminary injunctions prohibiting the convening of meetings, this paper examines the development of academic theories and case law, focusing primarily on Germany. It critically reviews the various theories proposed in Korea and Japan concerning the right to be preserved in such injunctions: the litigation rights theory, the dual theory, the rights to injunction under commercial law theory, and the compromise theory. Furthermore, it confirms that the preliminary injunction prohibiting the convening of meetings falls under injunctions based on substantive prohibitory claims. It argues that the right to be preserved for such injunctions should be viewed as the right of association members to exclude interference, substantiating this position from the perspectives of its feasibility and practical benefits.