2006Gahap5660 Return of the purchase price

00 00 4 others

1. 00

2. Stock company 000;

March 13, 2007

April 10, 2007

1. The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 35,200,000 won to Plaintiff 00, 100,000 won to Plaintiff 00, and 10,000 won to Plaintiff 10,000, and 15,200,000 won to Plaintiff 00, and 18,000,000 won to Plaintiff 18,000, and 18,000 won to Plaintiff 00, and 20% per annum to each of the above amounts from February 28, 2006 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

From 200 to 2002, the Plaintiffs purchased the shares of Defendant 000 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) through A. The number of purchased shares is 1,700 shares, 6,700 shares, 6,700 shares, 500 shares, 700 shares, and 900 shares. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, 3 evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The defendant 00 and the management director B of the defendant company engaged in the analysis of the shares value of the defendant company in collusion, and make the plaintiffs purchase the shares of the defendant company at a price equivalent to 40 to 50 times the par value of the defendant company through A, by making the plaintiffs purchase the shares of the defendant company at a price equivalent to 40 to 50 times the share value of the defendant company, such as false exaggerated advertising.

B. The defendants' assertion

Defendant 00 only sold part of the shares to A around October 200, and it does not constitute a joint relationship with B since A and B were unaware of the fact that they sold the shares to the Plaintiffs. In addition, as at the time of the purchase of the shares by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant Company recorded black persons for five years, and was almost no debt, it does not belong to the value of the shares.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the plaintiffs' assertion to purchase shares

Taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of Gap 3, 4, 5 (including various numbers), Gap 8, and witness 000, the plaintiff 00 can be acknowledged that the plaintiff purchased 1,700 shares of the defendant company (the par value of 500 won per share) in 35,250,000 won, the plaintiff 6,700 shares in 10,500,000 won, the plaintiff 00 shares in 10,000 shares, the plaintiff 15,250,000 shares in 70 shares, and the plaintiff 00 shares in 18,000,000 won.

2) Determination as to joint existence

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 36 through 42's testimony, the whole purport of the arguments is as follows: (a) around the time when the plaintiffs purchased the shares of the defendant company, the defendant company was the representative director of the defendant company; (b) the non-party B was in charge of the fund management and overall management of the defendant company by holding the office of management director; (c) however, when the defendant company acquired the company of 00 U.S. and the above company was required to make an additional investment in 00 KF, the defendant company's representative director ordered the above company to dispose of part of the shares of the defendant company and prepare the fund; (d) the defendant company was engaged in the sale of the shares of the defendant company of 00 U.S. to the general public, including the plaintiff, who was related to the plaintiff, etc., in Daegu as a hub for the sale of the shares of the defendant company; and (e) the defendant company did not actively visit the defendant company's share sales market of 00 U.S.M.M.

3) Determination of stock value

Comprehensively taking account of the facts stated in Gap evidence 11 through 35, witness 00, witness 00, witness 00, and witness 00, the share value analysis table of the defendant company, which was presented at the time of the purchase of the plaintiffs' shares, was created upon Eul's request by a certified public accountant who was aware of Eul, without confirmation or analysis, and did not reflect the actual status of the defendant company at all. The assets of the defendant company at the time of the purchase of the shares, were 1.5 billion won invested in the 00 KF through the 00 media, and 1.0 billion won invested thereafter. The actual value of the investment amount was not so much high that the business had already been 1.4 billion won or more, and there was no difference between the defendant company's debt and its employees at the time of the purchase of shares at the 2000 billion won, and there was no difference between the defendant company's purchase of shares at the time of the 2000 KFFFE and the part of the investment amount for 2000 years or more.

According to the above facts, the price paid by the plaintiffs when purchasing the shares of the defendant company (30 to 40 times the face value) is more than the actual value of the shares of the defendant company.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 00 is one of the joint tortfeasors who have acquired money by deceiving the value of stocks, and the plaintiffs are liable to compensate for damages caused by the tort, and the defendant company is liable to compensate for damages caused by the tort as above committed by the defendant 000 who is the representative director at the time and the managing director B in relation to his duties.

Therefore, the defendants are obliged to pay the money received as a share purchase price to each of the plaintiffs as well as damages for delay.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each of the plaintiffs 000 won to the plaintiffs 35,200,000 won, and 100,000 won to the plaintiff 000 (as claimed by the above plaintiffs), 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff 15,200,000 won to the plaintiff 00 (as claimed by the plaintiff), and 18,000,000 won to the plaintiff 18,000, and 18,000 won to the plaintiff 00, as of the day when the plaintiffs paid the above money, after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff 100, the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from February 28, 206 to the day of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the whole judge;

Allowable Judge

Judges Nono-Sa