beta
Text
1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 6,205,833, respectively, and KRW 5% per annum from March 11, 2016 to December 13, 2016, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 12, 2007, I agricultural partnership (hereinafter “foreign farming partnership”) was wholly amended by Act No. 8749 of Dec. 21, 2007, and its name was changed to the Framework Act on Agriculture, Rural Community and Food Industry. Since then, the part concerning the establishment, operation, support, etc. of the farming partnership system was transferred to the Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises enacted by Act No. 9260 of Apr. 1, 2009. However, pursuant to Article 15 of the former Framework Act on Agriculture and Rural Community (hereinafter “former Framework Act on Agriculture”), the purpose of which is to improve agricultural productivity and increase the income of its members through the rationalization of agricultural management.
B. On October 6, 2011, the non-party corporation entrusted the Plaintiff with the raising of 39,100 Maririland by entrusting the raising. On January 17, 2012, the Plaintiff shipped and supplied 36,986 Mari, raised to the non-party corporation.
At around that time, the non-party union issued a par value of KRW 37,235,00 per share to the plaintiff in return for the above entrusted raising, but the above check was in default.
C. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party cooperative with the Jeonju District Court’s Jeonju District Court’s 2015Ra12, and the said court rendered a judgment on November 3, 2015 that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37,235,000 and the interest calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 28, 2015 to the date of full payment.”
The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
On February 2015, the Plaintiff received the data on the annual shareholders status of the non-party corporation from the Jung-Eup District Tax Office. Around 2012, the number of equity shares held by the non-party corporation was 150,000, and the Defendants were the members of the Defendant C, Defendant D, and F, respectively, 35,000 equity shares, Defendant E, G, and H, and 5,000 equity shares.
[Grounds for recognition of Defendant C, D, and F] Article 208(3)3 (a) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment by service by public notice) does not conflict with Defendant E and H.