beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 23, 2017 to October 5, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. In relation to the development of the medical diagnostic machine, the Plaintiff asserted that, on September 21, 2018, the Plaintiff, which was submitted to the Defendant after the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the agreed amount was not KRW 100 million, but the first invested amount was KRW 50 million, and the second invested amount was KRW 25 million.
In addition, even if the record of the prior suit (Evidence A 3) viewed in the facts of recognition as "B", the Plaintiff did not seem to have asserted that the investment amount was KRW 100 million in the prior suit.
However, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Defendant agreed to issue 1% of the shares of the Defendant to the Plaintiff upon receiving KRW 100 million of the purchase price of shares from the Plaintiff” through the written application for modification of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim, each of the preparatory documents dated July 1, 2018, and August 21, 2018, and that “the Defendant agreed to issue the shares of the Defendant to the Plaintiff upon receiving KRW 100 million of the purchase price of shares from the Plaintiff.
In addition, on August 21, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that, even if the Plaintiff failed to pay the total amount of KRW 100 million for the acquisition of shares, the Defendant is obligated to issue shares as corresponding to the actual investment amount paid by the Plaintiff, on the premise that the Defendant’s obligation to issue shares is a pro rata obligation.
B. Around November 3, 2007 to March 20, 2010, a sum of KRW 75 million ( KRW 30 million on November 3, 2007, KRW 20 million on January 31, 2008, KRW 10 million on August 27, 2008, KRW 5 million on September 10, 2008, KRW 10 million on September 10, 2008, and KRW 10 million on March 20, 2010.
B. The Plaintiff sought the return of unjust enrichment or restoration of the original state against Defendant C’s representative C by claiming the return of the loan around the above KRW 75 million, and by asserting in preliminary deception the cancellation of the investment agreement or the cancellation of the investment agreement based on non-performance of obligation.
(Court 2014dan52155). However, this Court shall be June 22, 2016.