Open Decision Ledger · Corporate law & governance
Director-shareholder votes excluded in remuneration resolutions
Supreme Court, Apr. 2, 2026, 2025Da219931 (judgment)
Case name: 회사에관한소송[이사 보수에 관한 주주총회 결의 시에 주주 겸 이사인 자가 상법 제368조 제3항의 특별이해관계인으로서 의결권이 제한되는지 여부가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When a shareholders' meeting resolves under Article 388 of the Commercial Act on director remuneration, may a person who is both shareholder and director exercise voting rights, and are the votes of shares held by a specially interested shareholder counted toward the quorum in Article 368(1)?
Holding
No to both, unless special circumstances intervene. Unless all shareholders are directors, or excluding the specially interested persons leaves no shareholder able to vote, a person who is both shareholder and director is a specially interested person who may not vote at a meeting resolving under Article 388 of the Commercial Act on director remuneration. The votes of shares held by a specially interested shareholder are not counted among the votes of the attending shareholders under Article 371(2), and are properly not counted into the total number of issued shares that forms the base for the quorum in Article 368(1).
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특별한 사정이 없는 한, 주주인 동시에 이사인 자는 특별한 이해관계 있는 자로서 총회에서 의결권을 행사할 수 없고, 이때 특별이해관계 있는 주주가 가진 주식의 의결권 수는 출석한 주주의 의결권의 수에 산입되지 아니할 뿐 아니라(상법 제371조 제2항) 상법 제368조 제1항의 정족수 계산의 기초가 되는 ‘발행주식의 총수’에도 산입되지 아니함이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Unless there are special circumstances, a person who is both a shareholder and a director, as a person with a special interest, may not exercise voting rights at the general meeting, and in such a case the number of voting rights of the shares held by a shareholder with a special interest is not only not included in the number of voting rights of the shareholders present at the meeting (Article 371, paragraph (2) of the Commercial Act) but it is also reasonable that it is not included in the "total number of issued shares" that serves as the basis for the calculation of the quorum under Article 368, paragraph (1) of the Commercial Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
총회의 결의에 관하여 특별한 이해관계가 있는 자는 의결권을 행사하지 못한다(상법 제368조 제1항, 제3항).
Unofficial English translation
A person who has a special interest in a resolution of the general meeting may not exercise voting rights (Article 368, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Commercial Act).
Factors
- 주주총회의 결의는 상법 또는 정관에 다른 정함이 있는 경우를 제외하고는
- 출석한 주주의 의결권의 과반수와 발행주식총수의 4분의 1 이상의 수로써 하여야 하고
- 주주 전원이 이사라거나 특별이해관계 있는 자를 제외하면 의결권을 행사할 수 있는 주주가 존재하지 않게 되는 등의
- 출석한 주주의 의결권의 수에 산입되지 아니할 뿐 아니라
- 상법 제368조 제1항의 정족수 계산의 기초가 되는 ‘발행주식의 총수’에도 산입되지 아니함이 타당하다
Unofficial English translation
• Except where the Commercial Act or the articles of incorporation provide otherwise, a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders
• must be adopted by a majority of the voting rights of the shareholders present and by not less than one-fourth of the total number of issued shares, and
• in cases such as where all shareholders are directors, or where no shareholder entitled to exercise voting rights would remain if persons with a special interest were excluded,
• is not only not included in the number of voting rights of the shareholders present at the meeting, but
• it is reasonable that it is not included in the "total number of issued shares" that serves as the basis for the calculation of the quorum under Article 368, paragraph (1) of the Commercial Act.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2006다3585 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3585 decided July 12, 2007
Decisions referred to
대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2006다3585 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the specially interested shares are set aside and the quorum under Article 368(1) can no longer be reached, must the shareholders' meeting be reconvened, or may the resolution be passed at a reduced number?
A later decision on how Article 371(2) applies to the base for the quorum, or on the case in which all shareholders are directors, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 368, 371 or 388 of the Commercial Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When the specially interested shares are set aside and the quorum under Article 368(1) can no longer be reached, must the shareholders' meeting be reconvened, or may the resolution be passed at a reduced number?” vs Independent “How should voting rights and resolution thresholds be determined when all shareholders are directors?”
The primary reading asks how to proceed when exclusion prevents reaching the quorum, while the independent reading asks how voting and thresholds work when every shareholder is a director.
특별한 사정이 없는 한, 주주인 동시에 이사인 자는 특별한 이해관계 있는 자로서 총회에서 의결권을 행사할 수 없고, 이때 특별이해관계 있는 주주가 가진 주식의 의결권 수는 출석한 주주의 의결권의 수에 산입되지 아니할 뿐 아니라(상법 제371조 제2항) 상법 제368조 제1항의 정족수 계산의 기초가 되는 ‘발행주식의 총수’에도 산입되지 아니함이 타당하다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 30 October 2025 (2025Na206327), held that a non-party who served as the defendant's representative director was a specially interested person under Article 368(3) of the Commercial Act for the shareholders' resolution fixing the limit on director remuneration, yet exercised voting rights on his own shares. It therefore held that the resolution was unlawful and had to be annulled.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate judgment against the settled law, it held that the court below had not misapprehended the law under Article 368(3) of the Commercial Act or made any other mistake affecting the result, and dismissed the appeal by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, with appellate costs on the defendant.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which all shareholders are directors, so that excluding the specially interested persons leaves no shareholder able to vote.
- A case in which the Commercial Act or the articles of association provide otherwise, since the quorum and voting rule the Court restated applies except where such a provision exists.
- A resolution on a matter other than director remuneration under Article 388, in which the shareholder-director has no special interest in the resolution.
Record verification notes
Establish first which resolution is challenged and whether it fixed director remuneration or its limit under Article 388, and whether the defendant's representative director voted on his own shares. Then check whether every shareholder was a director or whether any shareholder able to vote remained after the interested persons were set aside, since the exclusion applies unless no such shareholder would remain. Finally compare the shareholding and the attendance figures against Article 368(1) with and without the interested shares, and read Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3585 alongside, as the Court followed it.
From the official text
Points at issue
상법 제388조에 따라 주주총회에서 이사의 보수에 관하여 결의하는 경우, 주주인 동시에 이사인 자가 의결권을 행사할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 이때 특별이해관계 있는 주주가 가진 주식의 의결권 수가 상법 제368조 제1항의 정족수 계산의 기초가 되는 ‘발행주식의 총수’에 산입되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a person who is both a shareholder and a director may exercise voting rights when a resolution on the remuneration of directors is adopted at a general meeting of shareholders pursuant to Article 388 of the Commercial Act (in principle, negative), and whether the number of voting rights of the shares held by a shareholder with a special interest is included in the "total number of issued shares" that serves as the basis for calculation of the quorum under Article 368, paragraph (1) of the Commercial Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
주주총회의 결의는 상법 또는 정관에 다른 정함이 있는 경우를 제외하고는 출석한 주주의 의결권의 과반수와 발행주식총수의 4분의 1 이상의 수로써 하여야 하고, 총회의 결의에 관하여 특별한 이해관계가 있는 자는 의결권을 행사하지 못한다(상법 제368조 제1항, 제3항). 따라서 상법 제388조에 따라 주주총회에서 이사의 보수에 관하여 결의할 때에 주주 전원이 이사라거나 특별이해관계 있는 자를 제외하면 의결권을 행사할 수 있는 주주가 존재하지 않게 되는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 주주인 동시에 이사인 자는 특별한 이해관계 있는 자로서 총회에서 의결권을 행사할 수 없고, 이때 특별이해관계 있는 주주가 가진 주식의 의결권 수는 출석한 주주의 의결권의 수에 산입되지 아니할 뿐 아니라(상법 제371조 제2항) 상법 제368조 제1항의 정족수 계산의 기초가 되는 ‘발행주식의 총수’에도 산입되지 아니함이 타당하다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
상법 제368조 제1항, 제3항, 제371조 제2항, 제388조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger