beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. On March 25, 2013, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion presented that the Defendant Company would increase its capital to the Plaintiff, who is an employee of the first police officer, for purchase of shares. Accordingly, the Plaintiff decided to acquire KRW 1,000 per share of the Defendant’s shares held by the representative director C, at KRW 10,000 per share, and transferred KRW 10,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant on March 25, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant contract”). However, the Defendant did not perform its capital increase and did not transfer shares to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to cancel the instant contract by serving a preparatory document dated June 26, 2014, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 10,000,000 and delay damages for restitution due to the cancellation of the contract.
2. In full view of the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff decided to acquire KRW 10,000 per share of the defendant on March 25, 2013 and transferred KRW 10,000 per share of KRW 10,000 to the defendant. The plaintiff acquired KRW 1,000 shares from the defendant's internal director D on November 25, 2013. The plaintiff acquired KRW 1,400 shares of the defendant's general shares (1,00 shares acquired at the original 40 shares) from the defendant's internal director D on November 25, 2013. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have concluded the contract of this case for the purpose of acquiring KRW 1,00 shares of the defendant's registered shares. Thus, the elements of the contract of this case are not important.
I would like to say.
Therefore, the argument of contract rescission on the ground of the plaintiff's delay of performance is without merit without any need to examine further.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is that the defendant will increase its capital (or list) even if he acted as a claim for damages due to deception of the plaintiff's assertion.