logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가합501335
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff was introduced through Nonparty C with the Defendant.

On December 2014, the Plaintiff delivered 1,440,00 shares of D Co., Ltd. to the Defendant, but received 1,000,000 shares thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, C’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The remaining shares of 440,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) with the Defendant

(E) The Defendant selling the instant shares and selling them to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

(1) The agreement to pay KRW 1,100,000 (=440,000 x 2,500 x 2,500) of the instant shares out of the proceeds of sale after obtaining a call option for the shares (hereinafter “instant agreement”)

(2) Of the above, C was obligated to pay KRW 700,000,000 to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 700,000,000. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 700,000,000 and the delay damages therefrom in accordance with the instant agreement. (2) There was no fact that the instant agreement was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant.

Of the 440,000 shares of this case, 200,000 shares were received from C in return for the sale of F shares, and disposed of them, and the remaining 240,000 shares were also remitted to C.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to view that the instant agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant solely based on the witness C’s testimony, and there is no other evidence, in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the facts described in the evidence No. 3, the witness G’s testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings.

The plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is not accepted.

There is no particular document that recognizes the existence of the instant agreement.

The defendant, G, and C continue to purchase specific shares and sell them and obtain profits from selling them.

arrow