(a) Reversion of ownership of new stocks issued in the capitalization of reserves where no transfer of ownership is made after taking over stocks;

(b) The validity of an order of transfer for the stocks seized for A is served on the garnishee and simultaneously with that of an order of seizure for the stocks held for B;

A. In a case where a stock company issues shares by transferring the reserves to capital by a resolution of the board of directors under Article 461 of the Commercial Act, only the person entered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders on a specified date as determined by a resolution of the board of directors in relation to the company. Thus, in a case where Gap actually acquired the registered shares of Byung corporation, but the board of directors of Byung corporation stated Eul as a shareholder because Gap did not transfer the registered shareholder as of the date determined by the board of directors of Byung corporation issued new shares, the shareholders of Byung corporation will become shareholders

B. If Gap received a transfer order in lieu of the collection order for the shares seized for Eul's own interest and the transfer order was served to Byung who is the garnishee, the above shares for Eul was served to Byung at the same time as the transfer order was issued to Eul, but the above shares was served to Byung who is the garnishee, as long as the monthly assignment order did not possess the above shares, the delivery itself of such seizure order does not have any legal effect. Thus, the above transfer order against Eul does not impede its validity due to the seizure of Eul.

(a) Article 461 of the Commercial Act;

[Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant] Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dai-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant Kim Jong-sik, Song-sik, Park Jong-dae, Park Jong-dae, and Choi Jong-young

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na3770, 3771 Decided September 7, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

In a case where a stock company issues shares by transferring its reserve funds to capital by a resolution of the board of directors, only the person entered as a shareholder on a certain date set by the board of directors’ resolution in relation to the company becomes a shareholder of new shares. As determined by the court below, although the defendant acquired the shares of the non-party alcoholic beverages Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the non-party alcoholic beverages”) as of December 20, 1984, the board of directors of the non-party alcoholic beverages issued the new shares, but the defendant (the non-party plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) did not transfer the registered shares, and the non-party Daejeon Alcoholic Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as only Daejeon) entered as a shareholder, the shareholder of the new shares in relation to the non-party alcoholic beverages shall be deemed to be the non-party Daejeon Spirits, and therefore, the plaintiff (the counter-party defendant; hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff only) shall not be deemed to be a shareholder of the non-party alcoholic beverages to whom the transfer of shares belongs to the transferee and transferee.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below delegated the execution to the 26th month of the same month upon receiving an order to seize the shares of this case from the plaintiff on July 16, 1985, and recognized the fact that he was entrusted with the execution of seizure by the plaintiff on May 8, 1985 and again deposited the stock certificates in the non-party Korean Commercial Bank's branch, which he had been preserved at the above bank's branch, and therefore, there was no ex post facto investigation procedure after the seizure of the shares of the defendant was conducted. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable and it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc., in the process of proof.

In the same way, the above double seizure on behalf of the defendant is null and void. On the other hand, as determined by the court below, if the order of transfer was served on the non-party who is the garnishee upon receiving a transfer order in lieu of collection of the above shares which were seized on behalf of the plaintiff for the defendant, the above seizure order for the defendant for the non-party who is the garnishee was served on the non-party who is the garnishee, at the same time as the above transfer order was issued by the plaintiff for the non-party who is the garnishee, the delivery itself of the above seizure order does not have any legal effect, unless the above shares are occupied by the non-party who is the garnishee. Thus, the above transfer order against the plaintiff does not impede

From the same view, the lower court’s determination that the instant shares were reverted to the Plaintiff is justifiable, and it did not state the validity between the above order and the order of seizure for the Defendant to the garnishee at the same time, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the seizure and transfer order of shares, such as the theory of lawsuit, on the ground that the service of the above order was made only by the delivery of the above order.

3. Ultimately, 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)