주주권확인 및 임시주주총회결의취소청구등
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, such as confirmation of shareholders' rights and a claim for cancellation of a resolution of a provisional shareholders' meeting, with Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch 2000Kahap4322.
On April 23, 2003, the above court dismissed the main claim under Paragraph (1) of the purport of the claim, and accepted the 13,390 share transfer procedure among the registered shares issued by the defendant, and the part of the claim for confirmation of shareholders' rights as to the 13,390 share transfer procedure among the registered shares issued by the defendant, and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claim.
The plaintiff and the defendant appealed against the above judgment of the first instance as Seoul High Court No. 2003Na35958. The above court accepted the defendant's appeal on June 23, 2004 and changed the judgment of the first instance to dismiss the main claim under Paragraph 1, the main claim under Paragraph 3, and Paragraph 4, and the remaining claims are dismissed (hereinafter "the judgment of retrial").
C. Accordingly, although the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2004Da40306 on the above appellate judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 9, 2005, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive is a substantial fact in this court.
The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff is the main evidence of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion, and the defendant and its representative director conspired to alter and exercise the above shares and inheritance rights transfer agreement and the receipts (No. 20-1 through No. 3). The plaintiff asserts that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, since the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition that has no right to institute a public prosecution on October 17, 2017 on the grounds of the expiration of the statute of limitations on the charge of forging each private document and uttering of the above private document by the defendant and F, and that there is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
(H) The plaintiff also rejected the plaintiff's assertion in the judgment subject to retrial.