주주권확인 청구의 소
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal:
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the case where the defendant emphasizes or adds to the appellate court the following "2. Additional Judgment", and thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts that the instant confirmation document (Evidence A No. 3) does not confirm the trust in the name of the Plaintiff.
In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s certificate of this case (Evidence A No. 3) was confirmed and signed and sealed by himself/herself, and it is evident that the shares in the name of the Defendant were trusted, and thus, the Defendant’s name was put in trust and agreed to write out at any time to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s designated person, at any time, at a certain time. In light of the above legal principles, it is clear that the Defendant’s shares in the name of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s designated person, as shares in the name of the Plaintiff were in trust, and thus, the existence of the legal act is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da442, Jun. 8, 1981).
Therefore, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the fact that a trust in the name of the Plaintiff’s shares was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for confirmation was completed or invalidated in accordance with the good faith principle after the lapse of thirty (30) years from the date of the nominal trust.
On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a claim for confirmation based on the ownership of the shares of this case, and this does not go against the extinction prescription, but it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's claim of this case is against the good faith principle, and it cannot be viewed that it has been invalidated.
(c)
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.