logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.07.10 2014가단253923
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A, B, and net G (Death on January 15, 2012) is a co-inheritors of the deceased, who was a shareholder of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) who runs an aggregate extraction business, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff A, etc.”), Plaintiff C, D, and E when he/she complies with the above three names.

B. On September 14, 2010, Plaintiff A, etc. transferred to the Defendant all the shares issued by the instant company, which they hold with the Defendant (hereinafter “transfer of shares”). At the time, “The transferor shall waive his/her right to civil and criminal shares even before the transfer of shares,” and “If the transferor is compensated for the four major projects, the shares held before the transfer of shares shall be divided to the share ownership ratio” (hereinafter “instant agreement”) was written and signed and sealed by the Plaintiff, etc.

C. After reporting the closure of aggregate extraction business on February 25, 2013, the instant company filed a claim for restructuring support under the Aggregate Extraction Act with the Busan Regional Land Management Office on May 22, 2013 and June 18, 2013. The instant company received 56,157,320 won (i.e., 346,458,660 won for 19,698,660 won for each of the 19,000,000 won for business closure support during the period of May 22, 2013 and July 2, 2013).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 7 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence (including numbers), and the court's inquiry into the Busan Regional Land Management Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and the decision-making plaintiffs, on the premise that the above subsidy for discontinuance of business is included in the "compensation for the fourth class" stipulated in the agreement of this case, the defendant asserts that the above subsidy for discontinuance of business should be paid according to the share ratio held before the transfer, as stated in the above agreement, to the parties to the above agreement or to their co-inheritors, as stated in the above agreement.

In this case, the above-mentioned subsidy for business closure is stipulated in the present arrangement.

arrow