beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 29, 2015, the respective shares issued and shareholders of the Plaintiff and Defendant as of April 29, 2015 are as follows:
The Plaintiff’s shareholder composition does not change until the date of closing the argument in this case.
C:
Around that time, according to the share transfer contract under the subsection, the entire shares issued by the defendant were acquired.
D Co., Ltd. accepted the defendant's new shares thereafter.
(2) 58,100,00 for the sum of the number of shares held by the Defendant’s shareholders (%) of non-high E E 68,073 68,85.8 9.8 F 2,600 G 200.28 E 1270.18 E 71,000 for the aggregate of the number of shares held by the Defendant’s shareholders (%) 57,7809.45 I 200.34,000 F 58,120.210
B. Around April 29, 2015, Plaintiff and Defendant 2015, E served as the Plaintiff’s representative director from around 2002 to October 14, 2015 (after that, K, who is F, serves as the representative director or the internal director of the representative.
(2) From around 2002 to the date of the closing of argument in this case, F served as the representative director of the Defendant from around 2008 to December 4, 2015, and as an internal director from March 28, 2017, respectively.
E served as the defendant's auditor from around 2005 to April 29, 2015.
L and M were employed as a defendant's outside director from around 208 to April 29, 2015, and N and C were employed as the defendant's internal director from April 29, 2015 to December 4, 2015.
C. On April 29, 2015, F entered into a share transfer contract: (a) concluded a share transfer agreement with C to transfer a total of 58,100 shares issued by the Defendant and the management right for the Defendant to KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “share transfer agreement”); (b) the main contents are as indicated in attached Form 1.
(Evidence Nos. 1, 8, 36, 2, and 1 are based on the evidence No. 8). The defendant submitted evidence Nos. 2 and the defendant asserted the probative value of evidence Nos. 8 different from that of the evidence No. 2 and did not conclude such a contract.