주주총회결의취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of the recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged after considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole with the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 28, 30, 31, 39 through 56 (including the branch numbers), and images and witnesses D, E's testimony, and witness F's witness testimony, and the remainder of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 34, 35, Eul evidence No. 34, 35, Eul evidence Nos. 34, 35, 36, 38, and witness F's remaining testimony is insufficient to reverse this recognition.
Since April 10, 2007, C performed a number of UI system development projects while carrying out a personal business with G in the name of “B”.
C and G become aware of the representative director F of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”) and participated in H’s development projects, and became aware of the Plaintiff who worked as a business director in the process.
B. Around January 2010, Plaintiff C, and G (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) established a company as well as agreed to develop UI system development projects. In lieu of the new establishment of the company, the Plaintiff used the Defendant, a dormant company, which was actually owned by the Plaintiff under the name of I (667 note) and D (3,333 note (the trade name before the change on February 17, 2010: J).
C. The Plaintiff et al. agreed to divide the first Defendant’s shares into 40% (Plaintiffs):30% (C):30%). However, considering that F made an investment, the Plaintiff et al. agreed to divide the Defendant’s total shares of KRW 10,000 (the face value of KRW 5,000 per share) into KRW 1,500, G1,500, F3,000, Plaintiff 4,000 shares.
Accordingly, on February 17, 2010, 3,00 shares out of 6,667 shares of the defendant I were transferred to 1,50 shares in the name of C and G, respectively, and as a result, the defendant's shares were transferred to 1,50 shares in the name of C and G, 3,66 shares in I, 3,67 shares, and 3,333 shares in D.
On February 7, 2011, the Plaintiff renounced the Defendant’s shares to the Defendant’s employees and led the Defendant’s share ratio to 40% (Plaintiffs):30% (C):30% (G).