(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단53968

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단53968

투자금반환

Text

1. The Defendant shall start on November 19, 2014 with respect to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 40 million, KRW 10,000,000, and each of the above amounts.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and D concluded a “E business start-up member implementation agreement” with the following content.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (1) The Defendant’s representative E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”)

(ii) the representative of the defendant, each of the plaintiffs, and each of the directors and D shall be audited by the representative of the defendant within one year.

3) Shares are 50%, A20%, Plaintiff B 10%, D 10%, and F 10%. 4) Shares are transferred to the Defendant’s account as payment for shares. Plaintiff A shall be KRW 40,000,000, and Plaintiff B shall be deemed as shares payment for the instant company.

5) Company earnings shall be distributed in proportion to Defendant 30%, Plaintiffs and D, 20%, and F 10%. (b) Each Defendant’s account; Plaintiff A, May 2, 2014; and Plaintiff B, May 16, 2014, remitted KRW 10,000,000 to each Defendant’s account (hereinafter “each of the instant transfers”).

() On May 22, 2014, the Defendant remitted the sum of KRW 50,000,000 to the instant company account under the pretext of “C provisional receipts”. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s entries in subparagraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the dividend agreement stipulated in the contract of this case was not implemented, and that the contract of this case was cancelled in accordance with the plaintiffs' declaration of intent to cancel its capital increase because it was not performed, and therefore, they are obligated to return each of the transfers of this case as restitution. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs are deemed to have fulfilled all the obligation to pay the amount under the contract of this case. As to the contract of this case, the defendant's obligation to pay dividends to the plaintiffs and to increase the company of this case remains as the representative of the company of this case. Thus, we examine whether

First, with respect to the non-performance of the obligation to pay dividends, the company of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.08.10 2018나54224

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.03 2016가합100530

-부산지방법원 2017.09.26 2016가단30209

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.23 2015가단50822

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.08 2016가단214647