1. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Paragraph (1) of the Addenda of the Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 641, Jul. 24, 2001) provides that "this Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation," and Paragraph (3) provides that "This Act shall also apply to cases that occurred before this Act enters into force, except as otherwise provided in special provisions: Provided, That this Act shall not affect

According to the court below's determination, the plaintiffs exercised their appraisal rights of this case on May 16, 2001, before the enforcement of the above revised Commercial Act, and according to the main sentence of paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the above Commercial Act, the revised Commercial Act shall apply to the legal relationship arising from the exercise of appraisal rights of this case. However, according to the proviso of paragraph (3) of the Addenda of the above Commercial Act, since the exercise of appraisal rights of this case under the provisions of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 6488, Jul. 24, 2001; hereinafter "former Commercial Act") is effective, the exercise of appraisal rights of this case under the provisions of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 6488, Jul. 24, 2001), it is not effective even

Therefore, the court below erred in its reasoning that this case should be governed by the former Commercial Act before the amendment. However, the provision that the company should purchase shares within 2 months from the date of receiving the request for purchase of shares and that the purchase price of shares shall be determined by consultation between shareholders and the company does not differ from the amended Commercial Act and the former Commercial Act. However, where the agreement on the purchase price of shares is not reached, the provision that the purchase price calculated by an accounting specialist shall be the purchase price was deleted under the amended Commercial Act. Accordingly, there was a somewhat change in the requirements and deadline for claiming the determination of purchase price of shares under the amended Commercial Act. Accordingly, the legal relationship following the exercise of appraisal rights, such as whether the purchase contract for the relevant shares was established by exercising appraisal rights, payment deadline for the purchase price of shares, etc., shall not be construed differently from the former Commercial Act and the amended Commercial Act, and thus, the above error of the court below did not affect

The Defendant’s ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

In light of the purport of Article 522-3(1) of the Commercial Act and Article 374-2(2) through (4) of the Commercial Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 530(2) of the Commercial Act, which regulates the appraisal rights of shareholders opposing merger (hereinafter “shareholders opposing merger”), the sales contract for shares is established regardless of whether the company has given consent by exercising the appraisal rights as so-called right, and the term “two months from the date when the company has received the request for appraisal of shares” under Article 374-2(2) of the Commercial Act means that the period during which the obligation to pay the purchase price of shares has been determined. This legal doctrine also applies where the purchase price of shares has not been determined within two months.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that on March 26, 2001, the board of directors passed a resolution on the merger with the Korea Cable Cable Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Empic Broadcasting") (hereinafter referred to as the "Empic Broadcasting") and approved the merger proposal with Empic Broadcasting at the rate of 1:0.0842 on April 27, 2001 by holding a general meeting of shareholders on April 27, 2001; the plaintiffs as shareholders of Empic Broadcasting, notified the parties of the merger opposing the Empic Broadcasting on April 23, 2001; on May 16, 2001, the Empiced the merger with the Empic Broadcasting (hereinafter referred to as the "Empic Broadcasting"); and on May 31, 2001, the Empic Broadcasting should not pay the appraisal price to the Defendant within the period of 10th of May 27, 2001.

The judgment of the court below is in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the legal nature of appraisal rights under the Commercial Act or the interpretation of Article 374-2 (2)

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal on this part are without merit.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

As long as the Defendant did not accept the payment of principal of the purchase price based on the purchase price of shares determined by the Supreme Court’s final decision but did not perform it, the court below determined to the effect that, as damages for delay on the principal and the principal and the principal and the amount of the principal and the principal are incurred from nonperformance of the principal and the principal and the amount, damages for delay from the date of delivery of the complaint shall be based on the statutory interest rate stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and even if there is a dispute as to whether damages for delay occurred before the Supreme Court’s final decision, statutory interest rate stipulated in Article 3

The above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which are alleged in the grounds of appeal. In addition, the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not applicable to this case, unlike this case. There is no error in

The Defendant’s ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)