Any person who has transferred shares before the issuance of share certificates shall retain the status of shareholders in relation to the company.

Even if the respondent has transferred the entire shares to the person other than the applicant, as long as the transfer of shares was made before the issuance of the company's share certificates, the transfer has no effect on the company, so the respondent is still a shareholder in a relationship with the company regardless of the transfer of shares.

Article 335 of the Commercial Act

Jeondong Chemical Industry Company

Other Party

Daegu District Court of the first instance ( Order 67Ka3821)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The original decision is revoked and the original decision is sought again.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the appellant is that the respondent transferred all the shares of the applicant company to the non-applicant 1, the non-applicant 1 to the non-applicant 2, and the non-applicant 2 to the non-applicant 3, the representative director of the applicant company to the non-applicant 3, so the respondent is a shareholder even though the applicant company is not a shareholder of the applicant company, so the respondent is acting as a shareholder, so the respondent applied for the injunction against shareholder exercise. Therefore, the court below rejected the application by deeming the

According to the evidence No. 3 of A, the respondent is still a shareholder in relation to the company, regardless of the transfer of shares, since the fact that the respondent transferred 10,000 shares of the applicant company's 1,000 shares of the 1,000 shares of the 1,000 shares and 20,000 shares of the new shares of the 1,000 shares of the 1,000 shares of the 1,000 shares of the 1,000 shares of the 1,000 shares to the 1,000 shares of the 1,000 shares

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss the appeal that the appellant is not a shareholder of the respondent, and the decision of the court below that the respondent did not transfer its own shares and stated that the respondent was a shareholder. However, the conclusion is the same as the conclusion, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Jae-il (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jin-il