beta
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2020.09.24 2020가합9284

주주권확인 등 청구의 소

Text

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B married on November 4, 1992, but Defendant B filed a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 19, 2019 against the Seoul Family Court 2019dhap14202, and the said lawsuit is still pending.

B. Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a company established on December 17, 2008 for the purpose of manufacturing and processing machinery, and Defendant B is a representative director of the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff is a director of the Defendant Company, respectively.

C. At the time of establishment, the Defendant Company issued 10,00 shares of common shares and 10,000 shares of common shares around July 201. The shareholder registry of the Defendant Company stated that Defendant B holds approximately 5,500 shares of the above 110,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) and that the Plaintiff holds the remainder of 54,50 shares.

On February 26, 2020, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the purport that “The Plaintiff: (a) established and operated the Defendant Company; (b) appointed Defendant B as the representative director; (c) Defendant B did not participate in the operation of the Defendant Company; (d) notified Defendant B of the purport that “The Plaintiff terminated the title trust agreement with Defendant B, and demanded the return of the instant shares trusted; and (c) around March 12, 2020, the Plaintiff terminated the title trust agreement with respect to the instant shares held in title trust with Defendant B; and (d) notified the Defendant Company that “The Plaintiff changed the name of the shareholder to the Plaintiff on the shareholder registry of the instant shares.”

As to this, the Defendants rejected the Plaintiff’s request on the ground that Defendant B was the actual owner of the instant shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8 through 12, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff subscribed to 110,000 shares issued by Defendant Company.