1. Case Overview
The board of directors determined that multiple grounds existed for the removal of the president, including inadequate management performance, issues relating to salary payments, and violations of obligations restricting outside positions and concurrent employment.

Based on these grounds, the board approved a resolution removing the president from office.

The removed president subsequently filed an application seeking suspension of the effectiveness of the board resolution, arguing that the removal decision was invalid due to both procedural and substantive defects and seeking restoration to the position of president.

2. Key Issues
The principal issues in dispute were:

• Whether the board properly followed the procedures required for removing the president;

• The legal nature of the relationship between the corporation and its executive officers;

• Whether the applicant possessed a protectable right warranting injunctive relief and whether there was a necessity for preservation through a preliminary injunction.

3. Legal Strategy
Attorneys Young-ho Chae and Ju-young Jang of One Law Partners, LLC developed their defense based on objective evidence and the following key arguments.

· Establishing the Validity of the Grounds for Removal
The attorneys demonstrated through objective evidence that the president had engaged in serious misconduct, including inadequate management performance, failure to ensure proper salary payments, violations of restrictions on concurrent positions, and other improper conduct.

During a further review of the case record, additional instances of misconduct were identified, further reinforcing the legitimacy of the removal decision.

· Arguing the Absence of a Protectable Right
The attorneys emphasized that the legal relationship between a corporation and an executive officer is fundamentally a mandate-based relationship grounded in mutual trust and confidence.

They further argued that the board possessed lawful authority under the organization's governing documents and applicable regulations to remove the president and that the applicant therefore lacked any legally protectable right requiring preservation through injunctive relief.

· Challenging the Necessity for Injunctive Relief
The attorneys demonstrated that granting the requested injunction would likely create conflicts of authority between the removed president and any acting management structure, disrupt organizational operations, and cause managerial and financial harm.

Accordingly, they argued that no necessity for injunctive relief existed.

4. Significance of the Decision
The court accepted the arguments presented by One Law Partners, LLC and held that it was difficult to conclude that the board’s removal resolution was invalid.
The court further confirmed that, under the organization's governing documents, the board possessed authority to remove the president and therefore dismissed the application to suspend the effectiveness of the resolution in its entirety.

This case is significant because it addresses key issues concerning:

• The authority of a board of directors to remove executive officers;

• The procedural validity of a president’s removal;

• The requirements for obtaining injunctive relief suspending the effectiveness of a removal decision; and

• The absence of a protectable right sufficient to support such relief.

The decision is expected to serve as an important reference in future disputes involving executive removals, challenges to board resolutions, and applications seeking injunctive relief following the removal of senior corporate officers.
 

Attorney Young-ho Chae | yhchae@onelawpartners.com
Attorney Ju-young Jang | jyjang2@onelawpartners.com
 

Public Relations Team, One Law Partners, LLC | pr@onelawpartners.com