주주명의개서절차이행청구
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, the second 5-9 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment on the assertion newly raised by the plaintiff is added to the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article
The Plaintiff is presumed to be a lawful holder of the instant share certificates in accordance with Article 336(2) of the Commercial Act, since the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares issued by the Defendant Company (former C Co., Ltd.) on December 1, 1993 from X on April 30, 2010 and possessed the share certificates corresponding thereto (hereinafter “instant share certificates”).
Therefore, Defendant Company is obligated to implement transfer procedures based on the above transfer agreement with respect to the instant shares to the Plaintiff, who is a legitimate holder of the instant shares.
B. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion that the validity of the instant sovereignty ought to be recognized by the binding force of confessions, the Defendant stated in the first instance court that “The Defendant is presumed to have forged the share certificates through an indirect or auxiliary fact, etc., without any direct evidence as to the theft of the share certificates.”
Accordingly, the Defendant led to the confession in the first instance court that there was no direct evidence as to the theft of the land for share certificates, and the Plaintiff stated the preparatory document dated April 3, 2017 to the effect that the Defendant invoked the confession at the date of pleading on April 6, 2017.
Therefore, the court should not find facts contrary to the confession because it is bound by the defendant's confession that there is no direct evidence as to the theft of the land for share certificates.
Therefore, the validity of the sovereignty of this case must be recognized.
B. Judicial confession is a fact unfavorable to himself, as alleged by the other party on the date of pleading or on the date of preparation procedure.