주주권확인 등
The part against the plaintiff, which is cited under the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be revoked.
The plaintiff.
Basic Facts
The grounds for this part of this Court are the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment.
(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The reasons why the court’s assertion by the parties are stated in this part are as follows: (a) the 3rd 9th 9th son of the judgment of the first instance is as follows; and (b) the 11th son’s “Defendant B” is as follows; and (c) the 11th son’s “Defendant B” is as follows; and (d) is as follows:
(C) The Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of repurchase under the instant 1 and 2 transfer agreement is subject to the suspension of the termination of the advisory service agreement of this case. The Defendants fulfilled the above conditions against the good faith and good faith. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the conditions have not been fulfilled.
(Article 150(2) of the Civil Act provides that the Defendants’ exercise of the right of repurchase shall be dismissed on the ground that the Defendants’ exercise of the right of repurchase constitutes a violation of the principle of no speech or an abuse of rights as it is not compatible with the assertion of no payment of the right of repurchase.
Defendant B, the primary assertion of the Defendants, concluded a contract with F, the Plaintiff’s agent, for the first and second takeovers of this case, and F was an unauthorized agent who is not authorized to act for the Plaintiff.
Defendant B notified the Plaintiff as to the ratification of each of the above contracts, but the Plaintiff refused ratification because it did not answer, so the above contracts have no effect on the Plaintiff.
In addition, as the Plaintiff did not pay the acquisition price under each of the above contracts, the Defendant B expressed its intention to cancel each of the above contracts on the ground of nonperformance to the Plaintiff, thereby withdrawing each of the above contracts entered into with the unauthorized Agent, and simultaneously rescinded each of the above contracts.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is not a shareholder of the instant shares, and the Defendant Company is not obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the instant shares.
Preliminary argument of this case 1 and the second transfer contract are concluded.