주식환매대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
Ⅰ.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is dismissed by three pages of the judgment of the court of first instance.
“Defendant” in this subsection shall be deemed to be “Defendant Company” and shall be deemed to be “Defendant Company,” and shall be deemed to be 3 pages e
The Defendant used the phrase “as of March 13, 2017,” respectively, to read “as of March 13, 2017, the Defendant Company used the phrase “as of March 13, 2017,” and as of the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of “the following 2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court. As such, it is cited pursuant
(In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, the fact finding and judgment of the first instance are justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant as the grounds for appeal). 2. Additional determination
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff paid only KRW 300 million by March 27, 2015, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 700 million by May 27, 2015, thereby nonperformanceing the contract (hereinafter “non-performance assertion”).
(2) 2) The signing and sealing by C on March 25, 2015 on its undertaking (Evidence A (Evidence A) is the signing and sealing in the capacity of an individual other than the representative of the Defendant Company.
(3) As of March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff’s letter of undertaking (Evidence A) dated March 25, 2015 stipulated the period for requesting the return of the investment deposit as of December 31, 2015. The Plaintiff’s claim for return of the investment deposit was exercised in excess of the said period, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of the investment deposit cannot be complied with (hereinafter “claim and Claim”).
(4) The purport of the content certification (Evidence A No. 4) of March 13, 2017 is merely the fact that C will be held liable for an amount equivalent to 42.5% of its equity ratio only for the portion in which C is responsible.
(hereinafter “Claim on Liability Limit”). 5 The presiding judge of the first instance court unfairly exercised the right to command the litigation in the process of interrogation of the witness to F and I, etc., and excessively limited the defendant’s right to command the trial.
Accordingly, the defendant is deprived of the opportunity to verify the facts and has caused the loss.