주식대금
1. A claim that is selectively added by this Court;
A. The portion of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment subrogated to the DDR corporation.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” in the second and seventh acts of the first instance judgment as “A”; and (b) the fourth and thirteen acts following the “statement of performance” in the fourth and third acts; and (c) the “Evidence Nos. 6, 9, and 10 of the instant performance” in the fifth and fifth acts as the “Evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 11 of the soldier’s disease (including each number of numbers that are not indicated separately; hereinafter the same shall apply)” are the same as the ground for the first instance judgment, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Summary of the intervenor's assertion;
A. Under the instant contract, the Intervenor paid KRW 164,288,571, which is the assessed amount for 23,000 shares of the non-party partnership owned by the Defendant, to the Defendant as the down payment amount of KRW 32,80,000 among the shares of the non-party partnership owned by the Defendant, but on March 29, 2010, 4,000 out of the shares of the non-party partnership owned by the Defendant was seized.
After that, the defendant promised to release the above seizure upon the payment of intermediate payment, and the intervenor additionally paid KRW 49,285,714 as the intermediate payment on October 18, 2010, but the above shares were sold to a third party because the defendant did not release the above seizure.
B. 1) On February 25, 2011, the intervenor notified the Defendant of the rescission of the instant contract for the foregoing reasons, and the Defendant bears the duty to restore the obligor due to the cancellation of the contract. In addition, according to the instant contract, the current management of the non-party union shall pay the intervenor a penalty twice the contract amount deposited by the intervenor (the latter part of Article 8(1)), and the Defendant bears the obligation to pay the intervenor a penalty in accordance with the said penalty agreement.
3 Even if the intervenor cannot seek restitution, etc. due to the termination of the contract against the defendant directly, the contract of this case is rescinded.