[주권발행인도][집18(3)민,202]
In the case of the blanket issuance of new shares under Article 17-3 (2) of the Korea Electric Power Company Act, it shall be an organic integration between the portion for consideration and free consideration. Therefore, the shareholders cannot acquire new shares unless the share for consideration is paid. It cannot be deemed that the comprehensive issuance system of new shares infringes on the property rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution.
It cannot be deemed that the new shares issuance system, which provides that no acquisition of new shares shall be made unless the amount for consideration prescribed in Article 17-3 (2) of the Korea Electric Power Company Act is paid, infringes on the people's property rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Article 17-3(2) of the Korea Electric Power Corporation Act, Article 20(1) of the Constitution
Plaintiff
Korea Electric Power Corporation
Seoul Central District Court Decision 69Na642 delivered on May 29, 1970
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
According to Article 17-3 (2) of the Korea Electric Power Company Act, when the defendant company issues shares pursuant to Article 17-3 (1) and Article 17-2 (1) of the same Act, the amount equivalent to one half of the revaluation reserve fund converted into capital should be issued comprehensively by requiring the shareholders to pay shares at the same time. In the case of a blanket issuance of new shares as above, since the amount of share paid at a cost and at a cost should be an organic integration between the share paid at a cost and the share paid at a cost, shareholders cannot acquire new shares unless the share is paid at a cost. Accordingly, the plaintiff who is the plaintiff who is the plaintiff who did not pay the share at a cost cannot seek the issuance of new shares at a cost. Accordingly, the original judgment is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of laws and regulations on the stock company, or in the misapprehension of legal principles on the dividend. The fact that the defendant company cannot acquire new shares without paying at a cost does not violate the comprehensive property right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Therefore, this appeal is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
The presiding judge of the Supreme Court of Korea (Presiding Judge) shall be the red net shots and the white shots