logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.09.25 2013나2026829
주식인도 청구
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff as added at the trial.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 16, 2010, the Plaintiff and Taesco Co., Ltd. entered into an investment agreement with the purport that the Plaintiff shall invest KRW 250 million in the apartment house construction implementation project implemented by the said company, and the said company shall pay the Plaintiff the principal of the investment and the amount of the investment income to the Plaintiff by July 31, 201, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of the said company under the said investment agreement.

B. On November 17, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 250,000,000 to Thaico Co., Ltd. under the said investment agreement, and the said company did not pay the total of KRW 750,000,000,000 of the investment principal and the profits under the said investment agreement. On May 8, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a share transfer agreement (hereinafter “instant share transfer agreement”) stating that “In order to secure the obligation under the said investment agreement as of November 16, 2010, the Defendant shall transfer 60,000 common shares of KRW 5,00 per share issued by the said company to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2012.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the share transfer agreement of this case, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to deliver the plaintiff 60,000 common shares of 5,000 won per share issued by Thaico Co., Ltd. to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's shares to be delivered are considered to mean the share certificates as securities representing shareholder's rights. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Thaico issued the share certificates. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim for delivery is without merit.

B. According to the facts of the determination as to the conjunctive claim, the Plaintiff acquired 60,000 common shares issued by Thaico Co., Ltd. pursuant to the share transfer agreement of this case, and became a shareholder of the said shares.

Therefore, the defendant is dissatisfied with this.

arrow