beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's additional selective claims are dismissed in this court.
3...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s additional or supplementary allegations and selective claims for the trial of the party, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The plaintiff's decision on the addition or supplement of the assertion is made within the meaning of confirming the invalidity of the existing share sales contract. Thus, since the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the relationship of monetary lending and lending between the plaintiff and the defendant is not effective, the minutes of the provisional board of directors of this case are subject to nullification and stated "all of the money and equity transactions between the shareholders prior to the sale" as the object to be null and void. Thus, the above resolution cannot be viewed as effective only for share transactions. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is
3. The Plaintiff asserts that, even if the transaction with the Plaintiff and the Defendant were null and void by the resolution of the temporary board of directors on December 23, 2013, the Defendant should return the amount equivalent to KRW 50 million of the borrowed amount to unjust enrichment.
In light of the records, etc. of this case, the temporary board resolution of this case was made for the purpose of arranging the claims and obligations between the plaintiff and the related persons of the defendant, etc. arising in the course of its establishment and operation to dispose of the broadcasting company of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the existing legal act by the temporary board resolution of this case has retroactively lost its validity. However, it is reasonable to view that it was an agreement to waive the claims or to exempt the obligations arising in the above process.
Therefore, by the resolution of the temporary board of directors of this case, the plaintiff was caused by a legal act based on the loan certificate from July 4, 2012.