Where stocks are acquired by borrowing another person's name, the person who becomes the shareholder.

In accepting stocks, where stocks are invested in another person's name and paid the acquisition value of stocks by borrowing them, only the borrower who actually takes over the stocks and pays the value thereof shall be the shareholder regardless of the change of title.

Article 332 of the Commercial Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da410 Decided July 8, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 74Da804 Decided September 23, 1975

[Judgment of the court below]

[Judgment of the court below]

Daegu High Court Decision 75Na969 delivered on May 26, 1976

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

On the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney;

In light of the evidence stated in the original judgment, it is not reasonable to accept each fact of the judgment in the original judgment, and it is difficult to readily conclude that there was an error in the process of the preparation of evidence conducted in recognizing that fact, which eventually leads to the criticism of the original judgment on the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding on the ground of a different fact from that of the original judgment in the position different from that of the original judgment, and there is no illegality in the omission of the judgment in the original judgment. There is no reason to argue.

As to the ground of appeal No. 4

In accepting shares, it is the opinion of the court below that only the nominal lender who actually purchased shares and paid the price of the shares by investing shares in another person's name with his consent should become a shareholder regardless of whether the nominal lender who actually paid the price of the shares was a nominal subscriber, and can not become a shareholder (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da410 and 74Da804 delivered on September 23, 75, 75). According to the facts duly established by the court below, the court below is just, the person who acquired shares at the time of incorporation or capital increase of the defendant company and paid the price of the shares at the time of the acquisition of the shares is merely the non-party 1 and the plaintiff, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, the non-party 7, and the non-party 8 were merely the person who lent his name on behalf of the above non-party 1 and the non-party company's temporary shareholders' meeting cannot be held in violation of the above law and the non-party 1's name.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)