주식반환등 청구
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.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation in this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance and evidence attached to the following judgment based on the whole purport of pleading, and thus, it is difficult to admit the plaintiff's assertion as "Defendant B" among Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "Defendant B". The ground for the court's explanation in this case is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary determination] The purport of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the sales contract of this case should be null and void, since the Plaintiff, as the husband of Defendant B and the representative director D of Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) had the Plaintiff recognize the value of the company’s property by making and delivering false financial statements in a situation where the value of the company’s property has been reduced unlawfully, thereby inducing the Plaintiff to recognize the value of the company’s property lower than the actual value. As a result, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff sell shares at the intermittent value in the
However, the plaintiff should prove the above embezzlement of D's occupational embezzlement and deception based on the issuance of false financial statements. However, there is a circumstance where the plaintiff's disposition of non-prosecution, such as embezzlement of the business of this case and fraud, which the plaintiff filed a complaint against D, such as the plaintiff's dismissal, is against the plaintiff's assertion, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is not sufficient to recognize it. According to the plaintiff's assertion (the grounds of appeal Nos. 16, 17 of the Reasons of Appeal), it was that the financial statements of 2009 were not delivered from D until the time of the sales contract of this case, and this is also inconsistent with the facts alleged by the plaintiff as the ground of claim of this case, and the sale and purchase of shares.