[Edaily Reporter Shin Ha-yeon ] INFINITT Healthcare(071200)stated on the 4th that, regarding recent reports on electronic proxies, the case is still merely a first-instance ruling and remains an unresolved matter for which the company has already filed an appeal.

The company maintains that while some reports, citing materials from a shareholder activism platform, portrayed the court as having recognized the validity of electronic proxies and ruled the company’s response unlawful, these reports do not sufficiently reflect the factual circumstances of the case or the rulings of numerous courts.

INFINITT Healthcare explained that it has filed an appeal against this ruling and has disclosed this fact through the Korea Exchange’s electronic disclosure system.

A company official stated, “This case is currently pending a decision in the appellate court and is not yet finalized,” adding, “It is premature to portray the company’s alleged unlawful conduct as having been definitively established based solely on part of the first-instance ruling, or to interpret the ruling as applying the same legal principle to all electronic proxies.”

The company emphasized that in another case involving the same shareholders’ meeting and electronic proxies, the court ruled that the company’s position had a reasonable basis.

According to the company, the Seoul High Court and other courts have ruled that for an electronic proxy to be recognized as valid, it must be submitted in a manner that allows verification of whether it has been forged or altered, as well as confirmation of its authenticity, identity, and integrity. The company explained that at the time, it had received printouts and document history certificates rather than the original electronic proxies, and the court determined that it was difficult to verify the integrity of the electronic documents or whether they had been forged or altered on-site based solely on those materials.

Consequently, the company stated that in the relevant cases, the court determined it was difficult to conclude that the company’s refusal to recognize the validity of the electronic power of attorney submitted at the time was grossly unreasonable or unlawful, and that the court rejected both the application for permission to convene an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders and the application for a preliminary injunction to prohibit the holding of the general meeting.

The company explained that the issue at the time was not the electronic proxy system itself, but rather whether it was possible to objectively verify the principal’s intent, the agent’s authority, and the authenticity and integrity of the document based solely on the submitted materials.

The company also argued that the Seoul High Court’s determination—that there was a significant possibility of an abuse of rights regarding the repeatedly raised demands to convene an extraordinary general meeting, given that a general meeting on the same agenda had already been held and ongoing legal disputes were continuing—should also be taken into account.

A company official stated, “While the company respects shareholders’ legitimate exercise of voting rights, it also has a responsibility to verify whether proxy authority was lawfully granted and to confirm the authenticity and integrity of the submitted proxies,” adding, “This ruling neither confirms the validity of the electronic proxy system as a whole nor constitutes a final determination that the company committed any unlawful acts.”

The spokesperson added, “During the appellate proceedings, we will fully explain the format of the materials submitted at the time, their verifiability, and the content of relevant court decisions, and we will continue to take the necessary measures to safeguard the fairness and legal stability of the shareholders’ meeting.”