(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2014.01.23 2013가합349

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2014.01.23 2013가합349

투자금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty D agreed to sell part of the shares owned by D with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Plaintiffs. On January 20, 2008, Nonparty D sold the land size of 1512.5 square meters to the Plaintiff as KRW 100 million. On January 30, 2008, Nonparty D sold the land size of 825 square meters to the Plaintiff B as KRW 50 million. On February 14, 2008, Nonparty D transferred 1653/4822 of the shares of the instant land to the Plaintiff and 826/222 of shares to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant company completed the registration of incorporation on February 12, 2009, and the same year.

2. On March 2, 2009, D and E were registered as representative director, and the Plaintiffs transferred their ownership to Defendant Company on the part of the land of this case on March 2, 2009 after Defendant Company was established.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) develop the main claim of this case and assign the defendant company's shares to the plaintiffs as director of the defendant company with respect to the profits earned by the defendant company, and distribute them to the defendant company's shares in accordance with the ratio of investment amount. In addition, under the condition that the plaintiffs recognize the shares in the land of this case transferred to the defendant company as owned by the plaintiffs, the plaintiff A paid KRW 100 million to D at the time of the defendant company's representative director and transferred the shares in this case to the defendant company again. The defendant company did not guarantee the profits pursuant to the investment agreement. Accordingly, since the investment agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant company was cancelled due to the non-performance of the defendant company, the defendant company is obligated to return the above investment amount of KRW 100 million to the plaintiffs and KRW 50 million to the defendant company.2)

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.09 2019나52159

-춘천지방법원 2019.07.02 2018구합51070

-대구지방법원안동지원 2015.06.17 2014가단6657

-창원지방법원마산지원 2014.03.28 2013가합1136

-제주지방법원 2015.09.10 2015가합140