logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.17 2016나2081544
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part concerning the reasons for the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following Paragraph (2) (Provided, That the part concerning the co-defendants of the first instance court shall be excluded, and the part concerning the "Defendant H" of the judgment of the first instance shall be referred to as "the defendant") and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 18, “The above facts recognized” of the first instance court No. 19, the part “as the above facts and Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act indicate the right to work in the name itself, it does not require that the company should be a person having influence over the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39240, Nov. 26, 2009).

B. Article 20 of the first instance court's decision No. 4-5 of the same Act provides that "the capital of the above company was less than 18 billion won or 7.4 billion won in total due to losses, etc.," stating that "the capital of the above company was less than 18 billion won or 10.3 billion won in total due to losses, etc. (see, e.g., evidence No. 12-26 of the above company's capital)."

C. The part of the first instance judgment No. 20 of the 11 of the 20th trial decision stating that “No reason exists (In addition, the defendant asserts that the market price equivalent to at least the amount equivalent to the total capital/capital ratio (41%) out of the face value of peting stocks should be recognized, but the above argument by the defendant is not acceptable when comprehensively considering the assets status of peting investment securities and their business performance.”

Part III of the judgment of the court of first instance is written only with evidence Nos. 14, 15, 17-1, and 6 of the evidence No. 14-1, 17-1, and 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and all the circumstances alleged by the defendant up to the trial of the court of first instance.

arrow