손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. In fact, E was the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) from March 2001 to December 2004, and D was involved in the operation of G to recover claims against G as a creditor holding a claim of approximately KRW 4.7 billion against G, and the Plaintiff was also a creditor holding a claim of KRW 1.7 billion against G.
The plaintiff was known to D through the introduction of friendly Gu, and E was the introduction of D, and the introduction of E was the only relationship.
G around 202, when acquiring H Co., Ltd., paid a large amount of debt by excessive spending of acquiring capital, thereby capital is impaired, and the management status of the company becomes worse due to the failure to pay wages to employees, such as operating funds, etc., the company was to raise funds for the company’s operating capital through capital increase.
Accordingly, on November 26, 2003, G decided to provide capital increase by a third party with a total of 25 billion won (50,000 won per common share, issue price of 50,000 won per share) and submitted a certificate of payment custody for shares on December 24, 2003 with a supporting document for the fact that the total number of shares issued by G was paid in full, and 53,163,466 from the existing 3,163,46 to 53,163,466 shares, the total number of shares issued by G was 26,581,73,000 from the existing 1,581,73,00 won to the previous 1,586 shares,73,000 shares, respectively, and publicly announced this.
However, since the above certificate of the storage of shares was forged and was not actually paid in G, G publicly announced on February 3, 2004 that the total number of shares issued and the total amount of capital, etc. due to the failure to pay the shares was revised as existing, and E filed a lawsuit to nullify the issuance of new shares (No. 2004Gahap652), but E filed a lawsuit to nullify the issuance of new shares (No. 2004Gahap652). However, even if the certificate of the custody of shares was forged, the ruling of dismissal was rendered on the ground that the issuance of new shares cannot be deemed null and void as long as the registration of the alteration thereof was made even if the certificate of the payment of new shares was forged, E as a director of G.