(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가합576042

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가합576042

주주권확인 등

Text

1. Defendant B confirms that the shares listed in the separate sheet issued by Defendant C are owned by the Plaintiff.

2...

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On September 1, 1995, the Plaintiff solely invested capital of KRW 50 million in the name of Defendant C, and established Defendant C, thereby title trusting part of the shares in another name in order to satisfy the requirements of three or more promoters. 2) On September 2001, the Plaintiff held title trust with the same 1,500 shares as the attached Form (hereinafter “instant shares”) from among the shares held in title trust with Defendant B in another name, and accordingly, registered the instant shares in the name of Defendant B on the list of shareholders.

3) On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to Defendant B the intention to terminate the title trust of the instant shares. [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Evidence Nos. 1, 3), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. As the Plaintiff, a title truster, expressed his intention to terminate the title trust of the instant shares against Defendant B, the title truster, and thus, the right to the instant shares ought to be returned to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, Defendant B is no longer a shareholder of Defendant C, and thus the Plaintiff is entitled to seek confirmation, and Defendant C is obligated to change the name of the shareholder on the shareholder registry of the instant shares due to the termination of title trust.

2. Defendant B, for 15 years, sent a lot of benefits from the title trust of the shares of this case to Defendant B. However, it is a defense that the right of the Plaintiff’s exercise of rights constitutes abuse of rights. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s exercise of rights constitutes abuse of rights on the sole basis of the Defendant’s assertion. Thus, the Defendant’s above defense is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.31 2015가단134918

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.09.25 2015가합5850

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.03.17 2015가합6990

-청주지방법원 2018.08.08 2018가합3370

-수원지방법원 2017.11.08 2017가단524565