지분환급 청구의 소
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff, including the plaintiff's claim expanded and reduced in this court.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant Company’s shares held by the employees and equity holders of the Defendant Company A 18 million won, Plaintiff B 18 million won in KRW D 18 million in KRW 18 million in KRW E 18 million in total, KRW 100 million in KRW H 100 million in KRW H 18 million in KRW G 18 million in total, the Defendant Company is an unlimited partnership with KRW 100 million in total, engaging in the sales business, etc. of Byung occupancy Class C, and at the time of the enforcement of the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Company as of March 25, 2011, the Defendant Company’s employees at the time of the enforcement of the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Company B, the Plaintiff and the joint Plaintiff B (hereinafter “B”).
(ii) At the time, D retired from the Defendant Company on July 12, 2011, and transferred its shares in installments to the Plaintiff and B, with each of KRW 3 million divided into KRW G and H, on the same day, the Plaintiff and B’s shares in KRW 21 million, KRW 10 million, KRW 12 million, and KRW 12 million.
B. On the other hand, H filed a lawsuit against the defendant company at the Ulsan District Court to confirm the absence of the Plaintiff’s membership right. The above court held that the defendant company’s articles of incorporation Article 17(7) and Article 17(7) of the Articles of incorporation of the defendant company retired due to the following reasons.
(7) When a member has reached the age of sixty-five (the period may be extended by a resolution of all the members). A judgment was rendered to confirm that the plaintiff has lost his status as a member upon the arrival of the age of sixty five (65).
(Ulsan District Court 2014Gahap17868). The defendant company appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the above appeal (Seoul High Court 2015Na56727), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. Accordingly, on the ground that the Plaintiff reached the age of 65 on June 12, 2013, the Defendant Company deemed to have retired from the Defendant Company as of the above day, and on December 15, 2016, the registration of alteration was completed as the Plaintiff retired on the above date in the corporate register of the Defendant Company.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence number are not separately stated.