주식매매대금 등 청구의소
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the share certificates listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff at the same time. D (E) shall not be less than 3,000,000.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a share purchase contract with D to sell KRW 600,000 of common share shares issued by the defendant (the trade name at that time was "C Co., Ltd."), which was owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the shares of this case") for KRW 3,00,000,000 (hereinafter "the shares of this case"). The defendant recognized the fact that he/she jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation under D's share purchase contract of this case, and issued share certificates listed in the separate list as to the shares of this case.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,00,000,000 as requested by the plaintiff at the same time as D receives share certificates in the attached list from the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the conclusion of the instant sales contract constitutes the acquisition of treasury shares and thus, constitutes the acquisition of treasury shares, and thus the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders is necessary. Thus, the instant sales contract was null and void, as it did not go through such procedures.
On the other hand, in order to view that the purchase of shares constitutes the acquisition of shares prohibited under Article 341 of the Commercial Act when the Defendant acquired shares under the name of D, the funds for acquiring shares are made by the Defendant’s contribution, and the profits and losses accrued from the acquisition of shares are attributed to the Defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da23610 Decided April 28, 201). However, there is no evidence by the Defendant as to such circumstances, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant sales contract constitutes a case where the Defendant acquired its own shares.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit without further review.
(b) the board of directors;