beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.22 2015가합291

주주권 양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company running a golf course C, which is substantially operated by D.

B. On August 24, 2011, the Defendant entered into a share transfer agreement between the Plaintiff’s name and E to acquire KRW 200,000 of the Defendant’s preferential shares owned by E (hereinafter “instant shares”) at KRW 460,000,000. The Plaintiff transferred the instant shares to the Defendant on December 26, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties’ assertion

A. A. Around August 2011, the Plaintiff accepted a proposal from D, the Defendant’s operator, that “after acquiring the Defendant’s shares from a third party, the purchase price for the acquisition of shares between D and D shall be borne by the Plaintiff in relation to the acquisition of shares between D and a third party, and the contract shall be concluded on behalf of the Defendant, and the acquisition price borne by the Plaintiff shall be returned at the later time when the Plaintiff resells the shares to the Defendant.

In accordance with the agreement with the above D, the Plaintiff paid KRW 460 million for the acquisition price of the instant shares on August 24, 201, and purchased the instant shares from E, but on December 26, 2012, transferred the said shares to the Defendant at KRW 460 million. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 460 million and damages for delay.

B. The transfer of the instant shares from Defendant E to the Plaintiff, and from the Plaintiff to the Defendant is a transaction for the Defendant to acquire his own shares. The Plaintiff merely lent his name on behalf of the Defendant and did not bear the acquisition cost of the shares. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff bears the acquisition cost and actually acquired the instant shares is unreasonable.

3. The above facts of recognition are set forth in Section 1, 2, 3, 5.