(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016고단1199

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016고단1199

업무상배임등

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. "Public prosecution room 2016 Highest 1199";

1. On August 16, 2012, the Defendant was appointed by the representative director of the Victim (State) E (hereinafter “victim”) and operated the victimized Company from that time. From around around 2011, the victimized Company was promoting the instant business of constructing and selling officetels and selling the 19th floor (hereinafter “instant business”). On April 3, 2015, the Defendant was granted a building permit on the instant business.

On the other hand, the defendant's shareholder G et al. of the victimized company "at the level of 15 billion won from the management of the Hanjin Group's non-funds, and deposit it in the Gyeongnam and receive a PF loan to prepare land price and project cost.

In order to do so, shares should be paid in the future.

In order to show that all shares have been taken over, a share transfer contract is needed.

On February 24, 2015, “Around February 24, 2015, I prepared a contract for the transfer of shares with the content that the shares will be transferred to the Defendant, including the shareholders G (the shares 12.5% 2,500 shares), shareholders H (the shares 12.5% 2,500 shares), shareholders I (the shares 56%, 11,200 shares), and each of the above shares.

Therefore, as seen above, in order to secure that the above G et al. is a shareholder, the original copy of the share transfer agreement was kept by J Attorney-at-law, an agent of the above G et al., while the Defendant kept only a copy of the share transfer agreement. On February 24, 2015, the Defendant submitted a “written request for share transfer without permission of the above G et al.,” accompanied by a copy of the share transfer agreement, and made it possible for the victimized company to open the name in the name of the damaged company on the same day.

2. The defendant, as the representative director of the victimized company, has due care as a good manager for the victimized company.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 남원지원 2016.05.03 2015고단283

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.10.19 2017고단1730

-제주지방법원 2018.08.29 2016고단918

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.04.10 2017고단1419

-대구지방법원 2017.07.07 2017고정1023