beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims
A. On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff A transferred 9,225 common shares of Plaintiff E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to Defendant C, and Plaintiff B transferred 3,075 common shares (transfer price of KRW 30,750,00) on the same day to Defendant D, but entered into a share transfer agreement with the purport to pay each share transfer price to the Plaintiffs by May 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant share transfer agreement”); Defendant C is liable to pay each share transfer price of KRW 21,090,525 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant D is liable to pay each share transfer price of KRW 7,030,175 to the Plaintiffs. Thus, Defendants are obligated to pay each share transfer price of KRW 7,075 to each of the above Plaintiffs.
B. (1) Determination (1) The fact that each share transfer contract (No. 1-2, 2, hereinafter “instant share transfer contract”) containing a share transfer contract, etc. as alleged by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is prepared, and the Defendants’ seal impressions in the said share transfer contract is affixed to each of the above shares transfer contract is recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings by the court’s order to submit each document to the F and G without any dispute between the parties or with respect to the F and G.
(2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that Nonparty H did not bear the obligation to pay the share transfer price under the above contract, on the ground that Nonparty H’s painting and related documents are necessary for business, and that the said H did not delegate the authority to conclude the share transfer contract of this case or allow it.
Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the share transfer contract of this case is prepared by affixing the seal of the defendant C, the husband of the defendant D, and the defendants who had been previously possessed by the defendant D H, and the first plaintiff A accepted E (the name of the company at that time was the corporation I) upon the recommendation of the non-party H.