beta
Text
1. Defendant D:
A. On September 30, 2012, between Plaintiff A and Defendant F Co., Ltd., for 4,500 common shares.
Reasons
1. As to the claim against Defendant D
A. The facts of recognition 1) Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) was established on November 13, 1991, and stock certificates were not issued for the shares. From around 2000, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. owned 4,500 shares, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C owned 9,000 shares among the shares of the Defendant Co., Ltd... (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). The representative director G of the Defendant Co., Ltd. forged three copies of the share transfer contract under which each of the shares owned by the Plaintiffs was transferred to Defendant D without the Plaintiffs’ consent, and the transfer of ownership was made in Defendant Co., Ltd. (=4,500 shares + 6,000 shares + 9,00 shares).
[G] On February 18, 2016, a summary order of KRW 5 million (this court ordered a summary order of KRW 2016,83) with the fabrication of private documents, etc. / [Ground] / [The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, there is no transfer contract between the plaintiffs and D on September 30, 2012 between the plaintiffs on the shares owned by the plaintiffs, and since the defendant D contests the existence of a contract, there is a benefit to seek confirmation thereon.
2. As to a claim against the defendant company
A. The indication of claim: The true shareholder with respect to Defendant D’s shares of 19,500 shares is the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant Company is obligated to cancel the name of Defendant D’s shareholder and to implement each transfer procedure under the name of the Plaintiffs (Plaintiff A4,500, Plaintiff B6,000, Plaintiff C9,000).
(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. The plaintiffs' claims for conclusion are accepted on the grounds of all the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.