logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.22 2016나2022033
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited as “paragraph (2)”; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff as “paragraph (3)” under the following, thereby citing it by the main text

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the second 11-13th 13th 13th 13th 2th 11-13 of the judgment of the court of the first instance, the part that “the number of common shares that can be acquired by the Defendant of 185,230 won per each common share (162 won per common share to be acquired at the time of exercising the right to new shares)” acquired approximately KRW 30 million per share (162 won per common share to be acquired at the time of exercising the right to new shares; hereinafter “the instant preemptive right to new shares”) was the same as “the number of common shares that can be acquired by the Defendant of 185,230 won per share (162 won per common share to be acquired at the time of exercising the right to new shares).”

B. Of the first and second instances of the first instance judgment, “In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings,” the part of the first instance judgment stating that “In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of fact inquiry with respect to the Financial Supervisory Service, all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff up to the trial and the circumstances surrounding the assertion are considered.”

3. Additional determination

A. Since the Plaintiff’s claim for return of short-swing profits is a statutory claim and obligation that must be clearly calculated by the Capital Markets Act, etc., it cannot be said that the claim for return of short-swing profits arises or is established unless the monetary claim amount can be clearly determined by the said Act and subordinate statutes.

The short-swing profit between the instant preemptive right and the instant common share is in accordance with Article 195(2)2 or 195(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Capital Markets Act.

arrow