beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.18 2016나2013558

공사대금

Text

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.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. On the 7th part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the correction or addition of the 7th part is as follows.

In the process of incorporation of a corporation, the term “company in the process of incorporation” means an academic concept to explain the relationship between the rights and duties acquired by promoters as a result of the act necessary for the establishment of the corporation and the relationship attributable to the established company at least one share of shares is established when the promoters subscribed to at least one share of shares at the time of incorporation. The rights and duties acquired by promoters prior to the establishment of the corporation is attributed to the promoters, individuals or the promoters’ associations depending on specific circumstances. In order to revert the rights and duties vested with them to the company after the establishment of the corporation, there is a special transfer of the rights and duties, such as transfer or acquisition of the contractor status, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da56020, May 12, 1998). The fact that the Defendant A was not established at the time of the conclusion of the contract for the second and second contracts for the construction of the corporation is as seen in the above facts, and E and I did not seem to have prepared evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A acquired shares as the promoters of the Defendant A on August 25, 19.

At that time, Defendant A cannot be deemed as a company during the establishment of Defendant A, and Defendant A did not have the substance as a company during the establishment at the time of entering into the second contract of this case. The rights and obligations under the second contract of this case are deemed to have been attributed to E, I, or promoters, and thus, it may be attributed to Defendant A.