1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 6, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 97250,000 to a bank account under the name of the Defendant, and received eight copies of a certificate of stock custody in the name of the Nonparty Company, stating that the Plaintiff exchanged 32,500 shares out of total 600,000 shares of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with shares as shares on the same day (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the Defendant signed the said contract with the representative director column of each of the above certificates of stock custody.

B. The Plaintiff was not registered in the register of shareholders of the Nonparty Company until now, and the said Company was dissolved on December 3, 2012 pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the result of response by the court of the first instance to the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the tax office, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into the instant share sales contract with the Defendant, and deposited KRW 97250,000,000 in the account under the name of the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not transfer the shares of the Nonparty Company, and the Nonparty Company dissolved on December 3, 2012, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to perform its duty of share transfer to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the instant share sales contract. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price and the amount equivalent to the delay damages due to nonperformance. 2) In light of the statement in the evidence No. 5, the fact that the Plaintiff deposited the price of the instant share sales contract into the account under the name of the Defendant. However, the fact that the Plaintiff was acknowledged is insufficient to acknowledge that the seller of the said share sales contract was the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the facts admitted and the purport of the entire pleadings.