beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.15 2016나53586

주식대금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 8, 2009, the Plaintiff established C for the purpose of wholesale and retail of medical supplies (value and materials) with capital of KRW 50 million and total number of issued and outstanding shares of KRW 100,000. The company’s trade name was changed to D Co., Ltd. on October 29, 2009 (hereinafter “D”).

B. On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff drafted a share and water supply contract (hereinafter “instant share and water supply contract”) with the Defendant and D, setting the transfer value per share of KRW 5,000,000, which stipulates that the transfer value per share shall be KRW 5,000.

C. On March 3, 2010, the day following the transfer of the instant shares, the Defendant established F Co., Ltd., and on March 8, 2010, changed D to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and on March 16, 2010, F Co., Ltd. was changed to D Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 30 million to the plaintiff according to the terms and conditions of the share purchase and water supply contract of this case.

As to this, the defendant argues that the contract for the quantity of shares and water supply of this case is not formally prepared for the purpose of tax reduction, etc., and that the defendant did not agree to pay the amount of KRW 30 million to the plaintiff, and therefore, he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. As long as the formation of a dispositive document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the dispositive document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the dispositive document.

If there is a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the intention of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the contents of the text, the motive and background of the agreement, the purpose of the agreement, and the parties.