The standpoint that not dealing with a proposal for the appointment of a special auditor does not entail its dismissal and that the appointment of a special auditor by the court is only possible in a case in which a general meeting [of the company at issue] deals with the proposal and dismisses such, entails a violation of the right to private property determined in Article 33 of the Constitution. This right also protects management and property rights which proceed from the capital investment (i.e. shares) of shareholders in public limited companies. An interpretation of statutory provisions which distinguishes between a situation in which a proposal for the appointment of a special auditor is discussed and dismissed at a general meeting and a situation wherein there is no dismissal of such proposal, as the proposal of the appointment of a special auditor was not put on the agenda of the general meeting or was removed from the agenda of the general meeting or deciding on the proposal was suspended without a justified reason existing for such, is contrary to the protection of the property rights of minority shareholders and does not prevent abuse by the majority shareholder.