logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.12 2014가합594739
주식매매대금 청구의 소
Text

1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,454,00,000 and this shall apply to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2002, the Defendant, which was established for the purpose of golf club business, etc. by 70 persons in Japan, issued the share certificates of 70 shares of common shares with face value of 50 million won.

B. On December 25, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of stock custody (hereinafter “certificate of stock custody”) with the content that “the Defendant shall keep the share certificates (hereinafter “instant share certificates”) of the shares listed in the [Attachment 70 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) among the above 70 share certificates, and that “the Defendant shall confirm that the shares are in custody of the instant share certificates” from the Defendant.

C. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff sold the instant shares to the Defendant at KRW 1.45 million, and agreed on the payment date on October 2, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); on the same day, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation stating that “the instant custody certificate is no longer effective due to the loss of the instant custody certificate, and agreed not to bring any civil or criminal objection against the loss thereof.”

On September 15, 2014, an independent party intervenor who is the Plaintiff (hereinafter “participating”) sent to the Defendant the instant shares to the Defendant on September 15, 2014, stating that “the Plaintiff donated the instant shares to the Intervenor in 200. The Defendant shall not purchase the instant shares from the Plaintiff. The Defendant sent a letter verifying the content of “The Intervenor shall request the entry of the Intervenor in the Defendant’s register of shareholders.” The mail sent to the Defendant on September 16, 2014, which is the following day.”

E. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to verify whether the Intervenor’s assertion was true or not, by September 30, 2014, notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing mail.

F. The custody certificate of this case is currently owned by the intervenor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, Byung evidence 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A request for intervention by an intervenor;

arrow