Communication construction in a General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS), in principle, is an embodiment of creating an agreement to accommodate the common interests of all shareholders in carrying out joint business activities. However, it is undeniable that there is a binary opposition in the distribution of shares that dominate the inferior pole, which results in an imbalance of the interests of the shareholders. In the event that there is talk of borrowing from the majority shareholder, there is often a grand narrative against the minority shareholder in order to accept the will of the majority shareholder as the lender. In this discourse, in the end, there was neglect of the distribution of year-end dividends to minority shareholders who hegemony approved the GMS decision. This study uses legal research methods using Derrida's Deconstruction approach and the Instrumental Communication approach. The results of the research show that there is a monologue logic that takes advantage of the gaps in Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies. Thus, minority shareholders in the formation of instrumental communication, contain an element of compulsion. Therefore, it is necessary that an agreement based on monologue logic is a false agreement.