logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.12.29 2016다232221
주식명의개서절차 이행청구의 소
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Intervenor.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) on December 13, 2010, the Defendant transferred a joint and several surety claim of KRW 3.4 billion against the National Pension Service 04-1 Corporate Restructuring Association QCP 11 (hereinafter “ QCP11”) and a joint and several several surety claim of KRW 3.4 billion against the Es.S. Investment Company (hereinafter “Es”); and (b) transferred a joint and several surety claim of KRW 2 billion against Es. 11 to Es. 3.4 billion against the remainder of the outstanding preemptive rights and the instant shares; and (c) on the ground that there was no evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion that there was no evidence supporting the Defendant’s offering the remainder of the preemptive rights claim of KRW 2 billion against Es. 3.4 billion and the instant shares as security.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of disposal documents.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court, on July 14, 201, concluded an accord and satisfaction contract with E.S. to the effect that E.S. transferred the remaining debentures of this case and the pledge rights to the shares of this case to E.S. on July 14, 201, and again, on August 31, 201, the Plaintiff was assigned to E.S. with E.T.T. and E.T. to E.T. to the effect that the Plaintiff would be assigned a pledge to the bonds with the preemptive rights of this case and the bonds with the preemptive rights of this case, instead of paying the interest claims and overdue interests claims.

arrow