Plaintiff (Law Firm Jins, Attorneys Jeon Man-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

LACC Co., Ltd.

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Gahap6916 Decided January 23, 2009

April 15, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The issuance of new stocks (80 million won per ordinary stock, 500 won per share) registered by the defendant as of January 24, 2008, and registered as of January 30, 2008, the issuance of new stocks (400,000, and 500 won per share) registered as of January 30, 2008, the issuance of new stocks (80,000 shares per ordinary stock, and 50 won per share) registered as of February 111, 2008, the issuance of new stocks (50 won per share) registered as of March 4, 2008, as of March 4, 2008, shall be confirmed to be null and void.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why a member should explain the instant case are as follows: (a)(1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (2) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff delegated the procedures for the issuance of new shares in this case with the full mind of the issuance of new shares to IMC in accordance with Article 2-2(a)(2) of the same Act; and (36-4 and 6 of the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff delegated the procedures for the issuance of new shares in this case with the full mind of the issuance of new shares to IMC; and (2) the judgment on the new argument made in the trial of the Plaintiff is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the

2. Determination on new arguments in the trial

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that, on February 1, 2008, the defendant remitted the company funds of KRW 350 million to the non-party 1, who is the shareholder, and KRW 50 million to the non-party 2, the non-party 1 issued 20,118 shares and the non-party 2 to acquire 20,00 shares as stated in the attached list No. 4, such as the entry in the attached list No. 3 of the issuance status of new shares and the same list No. 4, such as the entry in the attached list No. 3, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, in collusion with the defendant on February 1, 2008, constitute an remarkably unfair legal act in which the defendant acquired new shares with the defendant's funds, and that the right to acquire shares by the plaintiff et al. is infringed and invalid.

According to the evidence No. 34, the defendant deposited KRW 350 million to Nonparty 1 on February 1, 2008, and KRW 50 million to Nonparty 2. However, according to the evidence, the non-party 1 deposited KRW 380 million on January 23, 2008 in the defendant's deposit account, and KRW 20 million on January 28, 2008, and KRW 250 million on February 1, 2008. Thus, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant deposited the company's funds to acquire new shares, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the outflow from the company to a specific shareholder. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the non-party 1 deposited the company's funds, and there is no reason to acknowledge the outflow from the company to a specific shareholder.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)