부당이득금반환 등
1. Each of the appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) selected in the trial are dismissed.
2...
With respect to this case, this court's use is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or elimination of each corresponding part as follows. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the second page of the judgment of the first instance court, the term " December 6, 2011" shall be read as " December 5, 201" in the 15th sentence.
On the fourth 18th 19th 19th 19th 18th 4th 18th 18th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 19th 2nd 19th 2nd 19th 2nd 2006
In the fifth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the issuance of the "Defendant" shall be deemed to be the issuance of the plaintiff.
The " April 6, 2012" among the six pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as " December 5, 201".
Of the 6th judgment of the first instance court, “304,958 shares” through “304,958 shares,” the Defendant is obligated to donate the above 304,958 shares (14,489 shares after the merger) to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, as the Defendant sold the above shares to a third party at a discretion, the Defendant is obligated to return the shares to the Plaintiff as gains acquired without any legal cause, the sum of KRW 67,904,585 that the Defendant received as the sales price, and (b) the Plaintiff is obligated to return the proceeds that the Defendant acquired without any legal cause, and (c) to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above 67,904,585 won incurred by the Plaintiff due to the nonperformance of the obligation to donate shares to the Plaintiff.”
Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court is "one claim for return of unjust enrichment and determination on the claim for damages". The last part of the 7th judgment of the first instance court is "reasonable."
The evidence cited by the Plaintiff, such as “A,” Gap evidence Nos. 10, 12, and Gap evidence No. 21-1 and 2, and fact-finding with respect to the law firm of the first instance court, is insufficient to reverse the above judgment.
The defendant in Section 17 of the Decision of the court of first instance is referred to as "the above company".
Part 10 of the judgment of the first instance is in 19.