beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Before the change of C, Co., Ltd., Ltd., the “stock company D” and “instant company.”
(2) On February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff is a company running the wholesale business, retail business, etc., and the Defendant is the representative director of the instant company from February 7, 2012 to February 7, 2012. The Plaintiff was appointed as an intra-company director on February 7, 2012 on the corporate register of the instant company, and is indicated as being retired on February 7, 2015. As of March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff held 6,00 shares among the total issued shares of the instant company as of March 22, 200, the Defendant 10,000 shares, and E owned 6,00 shares. (c) The Plaintiff transferred the Defendant a total of KRW 4,5 million on January 30, 201, including evidence Nos. 21, No. 3200, Feb. 21, 2012, including evidence No. 21, No. 3200,000
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff agreed to receive the Defendant’s share in the instant company operated by the Defendant, and paid the Defendant an investment amount of KRW 45 million to the Defendant, but withdrawn the intent of investment and agreed to receive the Plaintiff’s share in the instant company from March 2013. As such, the Plaintiff agreed to accept the Plaintiff’s share in the instant company from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 42 million, excluding the amount of KRW 3 million paid from the Defendant, out of KRW 45 million.
B. The Plaintiff was at least involved in the operation of the instant company until around 2012, and did not withdraw the intent to make an investment immediately after the investment agreement, and there is no fact that the Defendant agreed to return the investment amount to the Plaintiff.
3. According to the statements and voices of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 10, it is recognized that a conversation between the plaintiff, the defendant and the defendant is divided, but the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence, i.e., the intent to return the investment amount individually in the dialogue between the plaintiff and the defendant.