주식양도계약무효확인 청구의소
1. There is no stock transfer agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 20, 2012 regarding the shares listed in the separate sheet.
1. The Defendant, on March 20, 2012, prepared a share transfer contract stating that the instant shares owned by the Defendant will be transferred to the Plaintiff, who is the second son. At the time, the Plaintiff was residing in the United States. However, the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, voluntarily stated the Plaintiff’s name in the transferee column of the said contract and affixed the seal thereto, and the fact that the instant shares are currently registered in the name of the Plaintiff pursuant to the said share transfer contract (hereinafter “instant share transfer contract”) is not disputed between the parties.
2. Determination
A. As to the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the non-existence or invalidity of the share transfer contract of this case as to the defendant's main defense of safety, the defendant asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it does not have any economic benefit since there is no market price for the shares of this case.
On the other hand, a lawsuit seeking the non-existence of a stock transfer/acquisition contract or the invalidity confirmation is not deemed to be a claim for the non-existence of a stock transfer contract itself or the invalidity confirmation itself, which is a previous legal act, but rather a claim for the confirmation of the non-existence or invalidity of the present legal relationship which is based on the contract, on the ground that the contract does not exist or is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2675, Jul. 7, 1987). Thus, the plaintiff's claim by the lawsuit in this case is not related to the past legal relationship or factual and economic interests, but to the purport of seeking the non-existence or invalidity confirmation of the present legal relationship based on the specific and legal interests of the shares held by the plaintiff as owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's main safety objection
B. According to the facts as seen earlier prior to the determination on the merits, the instant share transfer contract does not coincide with the intent between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.