(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나51850

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나51850

주식반환청구

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: “A” in the first instance court’s reasoning; “A” in the first instance court’s judgment; “B” in the fourth and fourth pages 13; “A” in the third and sixth page 6; and “A” in the second and sixth pages 10.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the reasoning of the judgment, except for addition of the judgment on the defendant's argument, as described in the paragraph.

B. As to the above, the defendant is merely a nominal holder of the instant shares and paid the actual purchase price. Accordingly, since the instant shares were owned by the defendant from the beginning, the name of the instant shares was changed from the plaintiff to the defendant.

Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant did not have a duty to return it because it cannot be viewed that he obtained benefits without any legal ground.

According to the evidence No. 2, the defendant paid 50,00,000 won to C for the acquisition price of 10,000 shares issued by C including the shares of this case on January 9, 2009.

However, at the time of the establishment of C, the Plaintiff and the Defendant subscribed to 20% of the shares of this case, namely, C, and agreed to substitute for the payment of the acquisition price as the Plaintiff invested in C after the Defendant paid the acquisition price on behalf of the Plaintiff (the Defendant asserted that the above agreement was made by deception of the Plaintiff and E, but no evidence exists to acknowledge it). According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the shares of this case were owned by the Plaintiff upon the Defendant’s payment of the acquisition price. The Defendant cannot assert that the shares of this case are owned by the Defendant even though he sought the payment of the acquisition price of the shares of this case paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.03.27 2014나2030078

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.03 2015가합39197

-부산지방법원 2020.07.10 2019나43238 (1)

-대전고등법원(청주) 2014.05.13 2013나1397

-서울서부지방법원 2015.01.22 2014가합34614