1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s representative director C, Nonparty D, and E established the Defendant on May 8, 2014. Of them, D and E became the promoters on behalf of the Defendant and Nonparty F on behalf of the Plaintiff due to credit, etc.

B. The Defendant accepted 17,500 shares (35%) from among the new shares of 50,000 shares issued by the Plaintiff at a par value of 10,000 won per share. The Defendant paid the shares in advance without actually paying them.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is 175,00,000 won (i.e., 17,500 won x 10,000 won). The defendant has the duty to repay the amount equivalent to the above payment and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. 1) In the case of the lump sum payment of shares, the validity of the lump sum payment of shares is not denied, so the payment procedure of shares is completed once, and the obligation of subscribers or shareholders to pay shares is terminated. However, in such lump sum payment, the company can view the shares of shareholders with temporary loans as being paid in person. Thus, after the completion of the procedure for the payment of shares, the company can claim for the repayment of shares paid in person to shareholders (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Da1823, 1824, Jan. 29, 1985). However, even in such a case, the obligation for the repayment of shares is borne by the nominal lender and cannot be deemed as the obligation borne by the nominal lender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da29138, Mar. 26, 2004). According to the above facts and evidence revealed earlier, according to the above facts and evidence, the defendant's assertion is no longer reasonable.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.