beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.09.26 2018가합103802

약정금

Text

1. Defendant C received 3,650 common shares of Company D from the Plaintiff at the same time as the Plaintiff received 3,650 shares from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is an internal director of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and is the representative director of Defendant C (hereinafter “D”).

B. The Plaintiff heard the proposal to make an investment from Defendant C to Defendant B, and deposited KRW 150 million in total to Defendant C’s account at least three times on September 8, 2016, September 12, 2016, and September 30, 2016, respectively, and deposited KRW 50 million into Defendant C’s account. The Plaintiff heard the proposal to make an investment from Defendant C, and deposited KRW 20 million in Defendant C’s account around October 2016.

C. Each shareholder registry of Defendant B and D stated that the Plaintiff is a shareholder who owns 5,000 shares out of 30,000 shares of Defendant B and 3,650 shares out of 100,00 shares of Defendant B.

Defendant C returned KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. From May to June 2017, Defendant C agreed to pay to the Plaintiff at least KRW 200,000,000 as dividend based on the Plaintiff’s share ownership. Defendant C agreed to return the investment principal to the Plaintiff and did not return the remaining KRW 20,000,000,000,000.

However, Defendant C is a person who substantially controls Defendant B and D as the same economic entity, and the fact that Defendant C received KRW 170 million in the name of investment funds by deceiving the Plaintiff constitutes an occupational tort as the representative director, and the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay to the Plaintiff dividends of KRW 36,712,00 during the period from September 30, 2016 to April 30, 2018, the principal amount of investment KRW 20,000,000, and delay damages therefor.

B. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant C made an agreement as alleged to the Plaintiff solely on the basis of each of the evidence of Nos. 1, 5, and 8 with respect to the determination on the cause of the claim and the claim for dividends, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(b).