주주지위 부존재확인의 소
1. Of the plaintiffs' lawsuits, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of the existence of abandonment is dismissed.
2. The part concerning the plaintiffs' monetary claim.
1. As to the claim for confirmation of the existence of the shareholder's abandonment
A. On October 31, 2000, Defendant F, the present representative of the Defendant Company claiming the plaintiffs, took over all the shares of the Defendant Company (ordinary share of KRW 30,000, per share of KRW 10,000), and registered each of the above plaintiffs as shareholders by stealing the names of the plaintiffs A, B, and C, who are their family members and relatives.
On September 30, 2012, Defendant F made a false entry into a share transfer contract with the content that the above plaintiffs' shares are transferred to Plaintiff D and reported to the tax office, the competent tax office.
Accordingly, this paper seeks to confirm that the tax office did not have the status as a shareholder of the defendant company by the lawsuit of this case, since the tax office seeks to impose tax on the plaintiffs.
B. We examine ex officio the legality of the lawsuit.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s right or legal status’s imminent apprehension and risk (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68650, 68667, Feb. 9, 2007). Even if the Plaintiffs were to receive a favorable judgment against the Defendants, as stated in the purport of the claim, the judgment is merely a relative effect that affects only the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and thus it cannot be affected by preventing or removing the effect of the taxation alleged by the Plaintiffs. Thus, it cannot be deemed the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiffs’ existing apprehension and risk in the legal status related to the taxation disposition in the rice without tax invoice.
Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of the existence of the shareholder's abandonment is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.
2. As to the claim of consolation money
A. The Defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' names were stolen, thereby making them registered as shareholders of the defendant company by fraudulent means, and sales contract, etc.