주금납입
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Basic Facts
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
At the time of the establishment of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties, H paid the total amount of KRW 670 million to be paid by the Defendants, the promoters, I, and G on behalf of the Defendants, and the Plaintiff immediately withdrawn the said money after its establishment and paid it to H. The Plaintiff should be deemed to have paid the stock price of the promoters, including the Defendants, with temporary loans.
Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff each share price of KRW 67 million equivalent to the number of acquired stocks and delay damages.
The Defendants asserted that they were merely nominal shareholders, and even if they were de facto shareholders, they were exempted from the obligation to pay shares or the obligation to pay shares in delay by the Plaintiff.
Judgment
According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 12, 25, and 26, and the entire pleadings and arguments, it is recognized that the total amount of KRW 670 million was deposited in the stock payment account for the establishment of the plaintiff on March 18, 2013 and March 19, 2013 in the name of the Defendants and G (Defendant B. 42 billion won, Defendant C. C. 67 million won, and G 21 billion won) and the total amount was withdrawn on March 20, 2013.
Even if the shareholders have the obligation to repay the shares paid in subrogation to the company even after the expiration of the paid-in capital, as the lump sum payment of the shares was made by shareholders with temporary loans, such obligation to repay the shares is merely the actual shareholder's obligation to repay the shares (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da29138, Mar. 26, 2004). The facts acknowledged earlier and the facts acknowledged earlier and the statements stated in the evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, and 21, respectively.