beta
Text
Attached Form
It is confirmed that the shareholders' rights of each of the shares listed in the list 1 and 2 are the plaintiff.
The costs of lawsuit.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) was a corporation established on June 14, 2002 for the purpose of landscaping construction business, etc., and its capital was KRW 50,000,000 at the time.
D 10,000 shares initially issued (the face value of ordinary shares 5,000 shares) were allocated to the Plaintiff 5,000 shares, Defendant B, and 1,000 shares shares to E, respectively.
B. D has increased its capital to 350,000,000 won by increasing its capital twice on July 10, 2002 and August 3, 2002. The Plaintiff’s shares became 35,000 shares [=5,000 shares (60,000 shares x 50%), Defendant B’s shares [=4,000 shares (60,000 shares increase x 40%), and E’s shares became 7,000 shares [1,00 shares (60,00 shares increase x 10%).
Since then, with respect to shares 7,000 shares in E, a change was made in name on November 14, 2002 due to the transfer of shares in F.
(c)
D again, on February 18, 2003, the capital was increased to 500,000,000 won, and 30,0000 shares equivalent to the increased capital was allocated to the Plaintiff and Defendant B, respectively, 15,000 shares. The Plaintiff’s shares were 50,000 shares (=35,000 shares), Defendant B’s shares were 43,000 shares (=28,000 shares) and F’s shares were 7,00 shares.
Since then, as to F's shares 7,000 shares, there was a change in name due to the transfer of shares in Defendant C.
(d)
On the list of shareholders of D as of the closing date of pleadings, the shares listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, and the defendant C are listed respectively as shareholders of the shares listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the evidence stated in Gap evidence No. 7, the plaintiff was the actual owner of each of the shares listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2, and trusted the defendants to the defendants, taking into account the following circumstances in which the purport of the entire argument was acknowledged.
It is reasonable to view it.
(1) Total amount of 7.7% of capital increase made at the time of establishment and around 2002.