(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.04.10 2012가합105128

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.04.10 2012가합105128

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) 1) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”)

(2) On June 30, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded a partnership agreement with the Defendant to jointly operate C (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) with a view to setting the period of the partnership agreement from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012, and written an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the sharing of roles necessary for the operation of C (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

3) The Defendant accepted C’s 39,000 shares (50% of shares) from the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant trade agreement. On the other hand, the Defendant was appointed as joint representative director and president in accordance with the instant trade agreement and the letter of agreement, and was registered as C’s director and representative director in the corporate register on August 22, 2007. (B) On March 25, 2011, the board of directors held upon the Plaintiff’s convocation of the resolution to dismiss the Defendant’s representative director and president from office with the consent of two (3) directors (Plaintiff, Plaintiff, and D) among three (3) directors, the board of directors held on March 25, 201, resolved to dismiss the Defendant as the representative director and president. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute over the instant trade agreement, Gap’s 2,25,41 evidence, Eul’s 7, 10, and 14 (the purport of the entire pleadings including the serial number, the entire purport

2. Claims for damages due to non-performance of investment obligations;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant are obliged to make additional investments according to their respective equity ratio in the event of loss in accordance with the instant trade agreement. 2) A’s offering of new shares was made twice due to a large-scale loss that occurred around July 2011.

In this regard, the plaintiff performed the duty of investment under the partnership business contract, but the defendant did not make an investment.

3 The Plaintiff invested money to compensate for losses in C.

Therefore, the defendant shall be the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.07.02 2014나23821

-서울고등법원 2017.06.01 2016나2029652

-의정부지방법원 2016.04.22 2015가합53282

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.09 2015나50308

-부산지방법원 2014.02.20 2013구합20517