집행문부여에 대한 이의의 소
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.
1. Paragraph (1) among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance.
A. Paragraph 1 is added to “Plaintiff A” following the third-party “A” and Paragraph 1 is also added.
C. The first instance judgment’s “YY 12, 2016.12” shall be deemed as “ October 12, 2015,” and the part disputing the grounds for appeal in the trial as follows is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for additional or supplementary judgments as to the grounds for appeal, and thus, it shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional or supplementary judgment
A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The first instance judgment that the issuance of non-issuance certificate is not a premise for a change of holders is inappropriate, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the change of holders of the instant shares was made before the delivery of the instant confirmation document. 2) The Plaintiff deemed that an immediate appeal against the instant decision was nonexistent, and completed the change of holders as to the instant shares on September 25, 2015.
Based on this, the Plaintiff: (a) managed the detailed matters concerning shareholder information, such as the shareholder name, total number of shares, equity ratio, and acquisition of shares; (b) prepared and printed out only the shareholder name, total number of shares, equity ratio, and relationship with the controlling shareholder; and (c) entered and kept the shareholder registry by means of affixing corporate seal; and (d) changed the change of entry by means of changing the shareholder registry upon request of a change of entry.
The Defendants’ shareholder registry (the evidence No. 21; hereinafter “instant simplified shareholder registry”) which completed the change of entry in the name of the Defendants was prepared on the basis of X-cell files (the evidence No. 20). According to the records of the nature of X-cell files (Evidence No. 22), the X-cell files were not modified after the last date of September 25, 2015, and thus, the change of entry into the Defendants’ transfer to the Defendants should be deemed to have been carried out on September 25, 2015.
3) The above X-cell files (Evidence No. 20, No. 25, Sept. 25, 2015, followed by the appraisal results of the relevant appraiser K.