logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.21 2015나2051874
주식명의개서 청구의 소
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall attach a separate sheet to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Claims for loans and transfer security rights against the Defendant by a Puak Mutual Savings Bank, Inc. (1) The Defendant shall acquire the Defendant, a Puung Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Puung Mutual Savings Bank”).

(2) The loan of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”) was granted from the Fund as set forth below.

[Dissenting] [Attachment 1] (As of July 7, 2014, unit: Won) Defendant 8 (as of 17,00,000,000,909,7364,7365,58,937,937,468,002,083 on December 27, 2010; 200,53,751,865 43,751,865; 1,70,000,000,000,000 shares and bonds issued by Defendant 20,000,000,000 on December 17, 2010 (as of 20,000,000,000,0000,00036348,329,308,636,630,630,006, 204, 206, 207, 2001.

At that time, the defendant prepared a letter of commitment to confirm that the shares of this case are non-issued shares.

B. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant loan claim from the Yongsan Mutual Savings Bank, and the Plaintiff agreed to receive the transfer of the instant shares by means of transfer of the instant equity interest. On November 25, 2014, the Yongsan Mutual Savings Bank notified the Defendant of the transfer of the instant shares. 2) On September 2015, the Plaintiff succeeding Mutual Savings Bank purchased the instant loan claim from the Plaintiff and agreed to receive the transfer of the instant equity interest from the Plaintiff.

On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor was delegated with the power to notify the assignment of the shares by the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the shares, and the notification was sent to the Defendant following the following day.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, and there are evidence Nos. 2 through 11.

arrow