신주발행무효
1. The Defendant’s issuance of new shares at a par value of KRW 500 per share on June 9, 2017 is null and void.
2...
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Facts of recognition ① The representative director, shareholders, Plaintiff B, and D are the Defendant’s internal directors, and Plaintiff C are the Defendant’s auditors.
② On June 9, 2017, the Defendant held a board of directors and issued new shares of 9,99,980 shares per issue value per share (hereinafter “instant new shares”) and allocated 3,500,000 shares of new shares equivalent to KRW 9,749,970,980 per share to the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant new shares”) and KRW 9,749,970,980 per share, and KRW 5,250,000 per share to G Co., Ltd.
In addition, on the same day, the Defendant, and the F Co., Ltd. invested the trademark right equivalent to KRW 9,749,970,000 in the amount of KRW 9,749,970,00, and G invested the claim for service payment to the Defendant in the future amounting to KRW 5,250,000 in the amount of KRW 5,250
The registration on the corporate register concerning the issuance of new shares in this case was completed on June 13, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s issuance of new shares in the instant case constitutes KRW 9,749,970,000, or KRW 5,250,000, or KRW 5,250,000, the monetary value of which is assessed, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant actually gains profit.
Therefore, it does not constitute a case where it is necessary to achieve managerial objectives of the company, such as the introduction of new technology necessary for allocating new shares to a person other than shareholders, improvement of financial structure.
In addition, the reasonable evaluation of such value cannot be recognized, and the amount of new shares to be allocated is high and the number of new shares to be allocated is remarkably unfair new shares that significantly undermine equality with existing shareholders.
Meanwhile, in light of the relationship between Defendant, F, and G, etc., it is not likely to undermine the safety of stock transactions.
Therefore, this is therefore.