(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.11.12 2015가단11161

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.11.12 2015가단11161

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 3,250,00 for Plaintiff A and KRW 20,000 for Plaintiff B and each of the said money from May 16, 2015 to May 2015.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The Defendant was allocated 43,00 shares (2,325 won per share; hereinafter “instant shares”) from public offering of shares by a third party that was issued by Esteex (hereinafter “Steex”) around May 2007.

B. On May 2, 2007, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 3,250,00 to the Defendant, Plaintiff B transferred KRW 20,000 to the Defendant, and Plaintiff B transferred KRW 10,000 out of the instant shares. This is the money corresponding to KRW 10,000 among the instant shares.

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they lent KRW 23,250,000, which is part of the purchase price of the shares of this case, to the defendant at the defendant's request, and claim the return of the above loan to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted that although the plaintiff A intended to purchase 30,000 shares of the shares of this case, due to the shortage of funds, only the purchase price for 10,000 shares shall be borne, and the defendant shall lend the remaining 20,000 shares to the defendant. However, the defendant acquired 30,000 shares in order to secure the above loan under the name of the defendant, and the defendant collected the loan by disposing of all shares of this case and recovering the loan as the price of the share falls below 2/3 of the acquisition price.

B. In full view of the facts that the instant shares are presumed to be a shareholder, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is presumed to be a shareholder; that Plaintiff A did not exercise any authority as a de facto shareholder with respect to the instant shares; that the Defendant held more shares than the instant shares in its own name; that the Defendant did not separately manage the instant shares and would have sold and purchased the instant shares in combination with other shares; that is, it would have been deemed that the Defendant did not sell and purchase the instant shares according to the need; that there was no unclear and settlement result; and that the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff A of the exercise of the security right at any time.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.06.02 2015나37935

-서울행정법원 2016. 11. 25. 선고 2016구합54404 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나51850

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.05.28 2014가단37821

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.10 2017나22317