beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff A shall be reversed, and the judgment of the first instance on this part shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. We examine the defendant's appeal ex officio.
According to the records, around November 30, 2015, after filing the instant final appeal, the Defendant revoked ex officio the imposition of KRW 4,086,665 (hereinafter “first disposition”) on December 31, 2008, among the part against Plaintiff A, of KRW 4,086,665 (hereinafter “first disposition”) due to the low-price acquisition of shares on December 31, 2008 and corrected the reduced portion of the imposition of KRW 89,407,443 (hereinafter “second disposition”) against the Defendant on December 31, 2009.
Therefore, regarding the portion of the First Disposition and Second Disposition revoked ex officio as above among the lawsuits in this case, seeking revocation of a disposition that does not have been extinguished, and thus, it was unlawful as there was no benefit of lawsuit.
2. As to the plaintiffs' appeal
A. According to the records, Plaintiff A sought revocation only for the part exceeding KRW 2,875,837 among the dispositions No. 2. Therefore, the part concerning KRW 2,875,837 among the dispositions No. 2 is not subject to the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of final appeal, and the modification of the purport of the claim is not allowed in the judgment of the court of final appeal, which is a legal person, and thus, Plaintiff A’s appeal against this part is unlawful as to the part not subject to the judgment. 2) In light of records, Plaintiff A’s claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 101,74,046 on December 30, 2010 (hereinafter “third disposition”), and Plaintiff A’s claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 78,676,279 on a low price acquisition of shares on the same day exceeds KRW 83,588,7479 on the same day, and the Plaintiffs did not revoke the part of the appeal against Defendant B’s claim for imposition against Defendant 486.
If so, the above 78,676.