주주권확인
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the pertinent parts as follows. As such, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The second written judgment of the court of first instance shall be in accordance with the following subparagraphs.
“However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the owner of the instant shares when comprehensively considering the purport of the testimony and the entire pleadings of the witness of the first instance trial, or when considering the following circumstances inferred from the witness of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted (in determining whether the Plaintiff is the actual shareholder of the instant shares or only the shareholder in the name of the actual shareholder of the instant shares), it does not affect any particular matter whether the E certified tax accountant with 1% of the
(i) "";
(b)in the third and fourteenth decisions of the first instance court, the following shall be added:
“A capital was paid by C at the time of the establishment of the Defendant, and the capital increase on November 17, 2001 also was made out of C’s capital (no evidence exists to deem that C paid a part of the capital or capital increase on behalf of the Plaintiff).
(4) The Plaintiff filed a claim for copy of books of account with Seoul Southern District Court 2014Gahap13236 on the premise that he/she is the Defendant’s shareholder. However, the above court dismissed the above claim on the ground that “At the time of the establishment of the Defendant, both C paid capital at the time of the establishment of the Defendant, and the capital increase was made on November 17, 2001 with C’s funds, and C transferred all the Defendant’s shares to G around April 8, 2003. At present, the Defendant’s shares issued on the Defendant’s shareholder registry were transferred to H in the future, both G and G’s spouse.” The Seoul High Court, the appellate court, on the same ground, dismissed the above claim on April 1, 2016.