임시주주총회결의무효확인 등
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. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff primarily requested the revocation of the instant resolution on April 20, 2015 as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant resolution”) by the Defendant at the temporary shareholders’ meeting on April 20, 2015, and the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim and rendered a judgment citing the conjunctive claim.
Therefore, since only the defendant filed an appeal on the part of the preliminary claim against which he lost, the scope of the trial of the party is limited to the preliminary claim, which is the part against the defendant.
2. The reasoning of the Defendant’s assertion in the trial of the first instance while filing an appeal is not significantly different from that of the Defendant’s assertion in the first instance trial, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance trial and all descriptions of the evidence submitted in the trial of the first instance and the evidence submitted in the trial of the first instance (including the number of pages) are examined, the judgment of the first instance is justified.
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as stipulated in the following Paragraph 3 to the assertion made by the Defendant in the trial room, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main text
3. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s actual manager, while establishing the Defendant, has held 10,50 shares out of 30,000 shares issued by the Defendant to C, 1,500 shares to G, and 1,500 shares to H respectively. However, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the revocation of the instant resolution on the premise that the Plaintiff was the Defendant’s shareholder, by asserting that the Plaintiff received 10,50 shares out of the shares issued by the Defendant from the above C and D, each of which the Plaintiff held 10,50 shares out of the shares issued by the Defendant. However, at the time of the establishment of the Defendant, the Plaintiff acquired shares issued by the Defendant under the name of C, D, E, F, G, and H by making a contribution to the acquisition fund of the Defendant’s shares. Therefore, the trustee of the Defendant’s shares is merely