beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.09.25 2014나16989

증권

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff owned 500 shares of the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company divided the portion of the Defendant Company’s shares into the business division with poor performance by holding a general meeting of shareholders, and then changed 189 shares out of the shares of the Defendant Company, which was owned by the Plaintiff, to the shares of the newly incorporated company. Since the Plaintiff opposed to the above resolution and exercised appraisal rights against the Defendant Company, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the purchase price for the said 189 shares and delayed payment thereof.

According to the evidence No. 1, the defendant company divided the real estate development business division and the CYPR US overseas investment business division, and the surviving division company established a divided company (tentatively named LSAD corporation) with the content of carrying on all remaining business division except the above business division on November 28, 2013, although it is acknowledged that the division plan was approved by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on November 28, 2013, but in the above case of the division of the company, the appraisal right of the opposing party under the Commercial Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes is not recognized, unlike the merger or the merger after division of the company. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the lawsuit of this case is unfair as it is concluded otherwise, but it cannot be ruled to dismiss the claim against the plaintiff, who is the appellant, under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in this case that only the plaintiff appealed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문