제권판결에 대한 불복의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The Defendant’s determination as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit is the close cooperation relationship between the Plaintiff and the F (hereinafter “F”)’s representative I, in order to secure the management right of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Company E (hereinafter “E”), and it is reasonable to deem that F was aware that F was subject to the judgment of nullification by false or other unlawful means, around July 17, 2013, when preparing a complaint and paying service fees, in order to file a lawsuit of objection against the judgment of nullification regarding each of the instant share certificates against the Defendant. As such, the instant lawsuit filed on September 26, 2013, which is apparent in the past one month after the lapse of such one month, is unlawful as it exceeds the period for filing the lawsuit.
However, solely with the relationship between the Plaintiff and I asserted by the Defendant, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff knew of the grounds for appeal against the nullification judgment regarding each of the instant share certificates on or around July 17, 2013, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit, and the lawsuit of this case is legitimate.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the following facts, there is no dispute between the parties, or the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 39 and the entire arguments, each of the instant share certificates appears to have been transferred to F, G, H, I, the plaintiff (storage Law Firm), and thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant did not hold each of the instant share certificates around September 1, 2004, asserting that the defendant was lost or stolen of the instant share certificates.
Therefore, around September 1, 2004, the Defendant filed a request for a public summons with the purport that each of the instant share certificates was stolen or lost at the office of the third floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cbuilding. Accordingly, the judgment of nullification constitutes “when the judgment of nullification was obtained by false or unlawful means” and the above judgment of nullification constitutes “when the judgment of nullification was obtained by false or other unlawful means.”