beta
Text
1. It is confirmed that each shareholder of the shares listed in the separate sheet is the plaintiffs.
2.(a)
Defendant D Co., Ltd. is Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2, Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”)’s transfer of each of 3,00 shares in the separate sheet issued by Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) to the Plaintiffs on October 21, 2016 (hereinafter “each of the shares in this case”), and the fact that each of the shares in this case was not issued.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, each of the instant shares transfer contracts was concluded, and the Plaintiffs became shareholders of each of the instant shares at the same time, and Defendant D is obligated to notify Defendant C of the purport that each of the instant shares was transferred to the Plaintiffs on October 21, 2016, as a requisite for setting up against the Defendant C, and Defendant C is obligated to implement the transfer transfer procedure with the Plaintiffs as shareholders of each of the instant shares in accordance with the purport of the above transfer notification.
In addition, since the representative director of the Defendants both are E and the same person, they refuse to transfer the ownership while disputing the validity of each share transfer contract of this case, the Plaintiffs are also entitled to seek confirmation of the shareholder status of each share of this case against the Defendants, and to seek implementation of the transfer procedure against Defendant C.
The plaintiffs' assertion is justified.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that the agreement of each share transfer contract of this case was not reached in accordance with the contents of each share transfer agreement of this case, or that each share transfer contract of this case was null and void as a false declaration of agreement, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion of this part is not acceptable.