Where the subscription price has been paid by borrowing another person's name and qualification as a shareholder;

In cases where shares are acquired by borrowing another person's name with his/her consent and the proceeds are paid, only the borrower in the name shall become a shareholder as the actual subscriber, and a simple nominal lender shall not become a shareholder.

Article 332 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da410 Decided July 8, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 74Da804 Decided September 23, 1975

Re-appellant 1 and 2 others, attorneys Lee Yong-soo

Oral Construction Corporation

Seoul High Court Order 80Ra45 dated July 30, 1980

The reappeal is dismissed.

Re-appellant's ground of reappeal is examined.

In accepting shares with the consent of the re-appellant, it is required that the borrower who actually purchased shares and paid the price for shares is not a shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 74Da804, Sept. 23, 1975; 75Da410, Jul. 8, 1975; 75Da410, Sept. 8, 1975). Therefore, the court below acknowledged the fact that the re-appellant did not actually acquire shares of the other party company and actually paid the price for shares by acquiring shares under the name of the re-appellant with the consent of the re-appellant, and that the non-appellant who merely borrowed shares and paid the price for shares cannot be deemed as a shareholder of the other party company, and therefore, the re-appellant's request for convening the temporary general meeting of shareholders under the premise that the non-applicant is a minority shareholder of the same company cannot be deemed as a shareholder of the other party company, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the status of shareholder.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)