주식양도 등 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiffs make an additional determination as to the conjunctive claim in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42
(The findings and judgments of the first instance court are not different, even considering the allegations and evidence added at the trial. 2. Determination as to the conjunctive claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants are obligated to settle 50% of the profits accrued from the instant hotel development project pursuant to Article 6(1) of the instant contract (hereinafter “PP Joint Contract”) and the profits accrued from the instant hotel development project are equivalent to KRW 10,414,398,658, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 50% of the profits accrued from the instant hotel development project, as part of the said profits, the amount stated in the conjunctive claim sought by the Plaintiff.
B. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff and Defendant C’s obligation to settle accounts is satisfied the condition that the Plaintiff and Defendant C take over the collateral security loan obligation of KRW 1 billion and deliver the trust company’s cash or beneficiary certificates of KRW 1.2 billion to B pursuant to the instant contract. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and Defendant C were involved in the instant hotel development project through joint efforts and investments, etc. under the instant contract. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone satisfied the foregoing condition.
It is difficult to view that the hotel development project of this case was carried out under the contract of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
In addition, Defendant D Co., Ltd is not a party to the instant contract, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff bears the obligation to settle accounts under the instant contract.
Therefore, the plaintiff's preliminary claim is without merit to examine further.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit.