소유권확인
1. The defendant's appeal, the plaintiff's incidental appeal, and the conjunctive claim added at the trial are all dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment as described in the following Paragraph 2 to the preliminary claim added at the court of first instance, which is subsequent to the 6th page 5 of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The Plaintiff entered into a transfer contract on 9,680 shares of this case with the Defendant even if the Plaintiff determined the conjunctive claim added at the trial.
Even if the defendant did not receive the transfer proceeds under the above contract, and thus, the defendant expressed his/her intention to cancel the above contract by serving a duplicate of the head of the incidental port of this case. The defendant asserts that he/she has a duty to express his/her intention to transfer the above shares to the plaintiff and notify C of
On November 20, 2008, the Plaintiff drafted a “stock transfer agreement (Evidence A No. 10-2)” containing the content that the Plaintiff would transfer 9,680 shares of this case to the Defendant at KRW 48,40,000,000. However, as seen earlier, the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence revealed earlier, the Plaintiff appears to have transferred 10,200 shares of this case to the Defendant free of charge even on November 20, 207 to promote C’s business. The “stock transfer agreement” as of November 20, 2008 only stated “cash payment” as to the method of payment, and without stating any indication as to whether to pay down payment, etc. or the time to pay down payment, etc., after the said “stock transfer agreement” was made, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff some of the above amount to the Plaintiff.
In light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the performance of the obligation to pay the price, and instead, the Plaintiff continued to pay C’s loans, etc. by subrogation thereafter.