beta
Text
1. As to Defendant New Technology Development Co., Ltd., Defendant New Technology Development Co., Ltd, January 19, 2015 and Defendant New Technology Development Co., Ltd, Defendant New Technology Development.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Articles 530-11(2) and 527-5(1) of the Commercial Act provide, “A company shall publicly announce that any creditor who has an objection to a merger, within two weeks from the date of a resolution of approval of the general meeting of shareholders under Article 522, shall submit the same within a period of not less than one month and make a peremptory notice to the creditors known to the effect that if the creditor has an objection to the merger, it shall be submitted within one month or more.” In light of the fact that the merger after division brings a serious change in the company’s property, which is the security of the claim, from the creditor of the company, and that the collection of the claim may be considerably difficult due to the merger after division, unless there
Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the merger after division is null and void.
B. On December 2, 2014, the Defendants divided the part of the electrical construction business of Defendant N&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant N&C”), and merged the divided parts of Defendant N&C (hereinafter “Defendant N&C”), and the Defendants merged to each other (hereinafter “this case’s merger”); Defendant N&C was registered as the instant merger after the instant merger on January 19, 2015; Defendant N&C was registered on January 16, 2015; the Plaintiff leased Defendant N&C’s loans KRW 220,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2014; the Defendants failed to go through the creditor protection procedure in the process of the instant merger by split-merger; or the Defendants may be acknowledged as having no dispute between the parties, or as a whole pursuant to the purport of the entire statements and arguments as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4 and each of subparagraphs.
C. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the merger by split as null and void.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.