바카라 온라인

1. Case Overview
a. Party represented by Barun Law
The head of a housing redevelopment 바카라 온라인

b. Background
Certain members (the "creditors") of a housing redevelopment 바카라 온라인 consisting of approximately 1,100 members (the "바카라 온라인") filed an application for provisional measures against the 바카라 온라인 and its head, seeking suspension of the effect of the general meeting resolution and suspension of the performance of duties, alleging that the resolution to elect the head and executive officers was invalid.

c. Proceedings
The creditors asserted that they had received written withdrawal statements rescinding previously exercised voting rights from several hundred members and attempted to submit them to the 바카라 온라인 by proxy immediately before the general meeting, but that the 바카라 온라인 refused to accept them without justifiable grounds. They further argued that, if such withdrawal statements were included in the vote count, the quorum requirements for the general meeting would not have been satisfied, and therefore the resolution of the general meeting was materially defective and invalid.

2. Decision
The court found all of the creditors' arguments to be without merit and dismissed the application (Incheon District Court Decision 2025Kahap10197, dated November 17, 2025).

3. Grounds for the Decision
The court held that the 바카라 온라인's articles of incorporation strictly prescribe that the exercise of written voting rights must, in principle, be carried out either by the member personally submitting a written voting form or through a person designated in the articles or relevant regulations, and that, in light of the purpose of verifying members' true intent and preventing disputes, such provisions also apply to the submission of written withdrawal statements. Accordingly, because the creditors failed to duly submit the written withdrawal statements, no valid withdrawal took effect, and there was no material defect in the method or outcome of calculating the quorum for the general meeting resolution.

4. Our Arguments and Role
The Supreme Court of Korea has generally held that an expression of intent to withdraw a voting right after it has been exercised does not necessarily need to follow a specific procedure or form, and that such withdrawal is effective if there are acts or external appearances from which the author's true intent can be inferred. Relying on this Supreme Court precedent and several lower court decisions that permitted proxy submission of written withdrawal statements, the creditors argued that their submission was lawful.

In response, we conducted a detailed analysis of the holdings and factual circumstances of the cited Supreme Court and lower court decisions and emphasized that those cases involved situations in which there were no provisions in the articles governing the method of submitting written voting forms or withdrawal statements, and thus were not applicable to the present case. We further defended against the creditors' claims by actively explaining the purpose of the articles' provisions governing the exercise of written voting rights and arguing that such provisions must also apply to written withdrawal statements.

5. Significance of the Decision
This decision is significant in that it clearly confirms that Supreme Court precedents holding that no specific procedure or form is required for expressions of intent to withdraw apply only where there are no separate provisions in the articles governing the method of submitting written voting forms or withdrawal statements, and further confirms that provisions governing the exercise of written voting rights may also apply to written withdrawal statements.