(a) Stockholders and preferential right to purchase, who have acquired the stocks of a business enterprise devolvingd on or after August 10, 4278;

(b) Requirements for setting up against a third party in cases of transfer of stocks not in accordance with this form and transfer of name in the register of shareholders.

(a) In cases of the transfer of registered shares, if the third party recognizes the transfer, the requirement of setting up against him is not required;

B. The shareholder who is the preferential purchaser of the vested enterprise must be the shareholder of the enterprise in question before August 9, 1945. Thus, the person who was transferred the shares of the enterprise after August 9, 1945 and became the shareholder can not claim the preferential purchase right with respect to the enterprise.

If a person who was a shareholder before August 9, 1945 transfers the shares of the enterprise to another person, and even if he fails to meet the requirements for setting up against a third party in such transfer, if the competent authorities which was a third party recognizes the transfer of the shares, the person who was the original shareholder of the transfer of the shares shall lose the preferential right to sell the shares of the enterprise in accordance with the proviso of subparagraph 1 of this Article.

Article 15 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 10 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 206 of the Commercial Act

Lee Dong-soo et al.

Trackology

The Director-General of the Gyeongbuk-do;

Daegu High Court Decision 58Na51 delivered on October 16, 1959

According to the facts and reasons stated in the original judgment as to the ground of appeal by the plaintiff Song branch's agent, the plaintiff Song branch's agent was transferred 500 shares of the non-party Joseon Korea Co., Ltd. from the non-party Kim Jong in March 9, 4285, and there is no dispute between the parties. According to Article 15 of the Asset Management Act and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the shareholder who is the preferential purchaser of the company should be the relevant company from August 9, 4278, and the plaintiff was not the shareholder of the non-party Song branch's agent before August 9, 4278. The plaintiff is clear by the facts and reasons indicated in the original judgment in the exhibition, and since he was transferred shares of the company before August 9, 4278, he did not have the preferential purchase right to the plaintiff, even though he did not have the preferential purchase right to the plaintiff.

As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers Kim Young-ho

According to the facts established lawfully by the original judgment, the plaintiff Lee Dong-dong's Haak-dong's 200 shares of the non-party ship's corporation for the interest of the plaintiff's corporation for the interest of March 4285 and transferred 200 shares of the non-party ship for the interest of the plaintiff's corporation for the interest of March 1, 285 to the plaintiff Song Jae-dong, but the transferee did not enter the name and address in the company's register of shareholders and did not request the plaintiff Song-dong to set up against the plaintiff's company and other third parties. According to Article 206 of the Commercial Act, if the purchaser's name and address are not entered in the company's register of shareholders, that is, if the transfer of the registered shares is not based on the name and address of the person who acquired the shares, it shall not be set up against the company or the third party unless the purchaser's name and address are entered in the register of shareholders, and if the transfer of shares is not based on the above certificate, the defendant shall not set up against the plaintiff, etc.

In this case, the defendant recognized the transfer of shares and rendered an administrative disposition in this case on the premise that it is not a shareholder after March 4285 on the premise that the plaintiff's transfer of shares was not a shareholder. Since it is apparent in accordance with the facts stated in the original judgment and the purport of pleading, as long as the name of the plaintiff was lost by transfer of shareholder status, the right to preferential purchase of the company can not be acknowledged. However, the court below's decision misunderstanding the provisions of Article 206 of the Commercial Act, which did not meet the requirements for preferential purchase of shares, and decided that the administrative disposition in this case which did not recognize the preferential purchase right of the company is erroneous as the defendant, other than the company, did not meet the requirements for preferential purchase of shares. Further, as long as the court below's decision did not recognize the preferential purchase right of the company after March 4285, it should be different from the original judgment unless there is any reason for which preferential purchase right can be otherwise acknowledged, the part of the plaintiff's transfer of shares in this case's judgment shall be reversed.

Justices B. B.D. (Presiding Justice)