주식명의신탁해지 및 명도
1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff is a shareholder of shares listed in the annexed sheet.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were members of a group of friendship in the form of a club for academic announcements, and 17 members of the above group including the Defendant were promoters. On March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant established C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “instant company”) for the purpose of beauty art, sex, lascition, education, and academic operation, etc. (hereinafter “instant company”).
B. The Plaintiff led the practice of the establishment procedure of the instant company, and was appointed at the general meeting of promoters as the auditor of the instant company, and implemented the reporting procedure on the establishment matters pursuant to Article 298 of the Commercial Act.
C. The instant company issued 1,080 shares registered as common shares of the instant company at KRW 5,00 per share pursuant to the contents stipulated in the articles of incorporation. The shareholders registry of the instant company stated the remaining promoters except the Plaintiff among the 17 promoters as to the total number of shares issued at KRW 1,080 each of 60 shares and the Defendant’s share certificates are not issued.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 5, Eul 2's each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The following circumstances, which can be known by the facts based on the judgment as to the cause of the claim, and by the statements in Gap 2, Gap 6-1, and Eul 8, witness D's testimony, and Eul 7 video, the plaintiff was acting as a legislative director of the academic group seen to be the telegraph of the company of this case, and led the practice of the establishment procedure of the company of this case. ② A certified judicial scrivener who was delegated by the plaintiff to the practice of the establishment procedure of the company of this case appears to have been engaged in the affairs under the premise that the plaintiff was both promoters and shareholders at that time. A certified judicial scrivener who was delegated by the plaintiff was a witness in this court and the auditor of the company of this case, who was subject to the limitations under the Commercial Act, was nominal in trust with the defendant to make an investigation report under Article 298 of the Commercial Act. ③ Article 298 (2) of the Commercial Act