(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.29 2016나9223 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.29 2016나9223

주주명의변경청구의 소

Text

1. The part of an action filed by an independent party participation in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked;

2. The case.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420

2. The arguments by the parties concerned are that the company of this case is one person company F, which is the reference of the independent party intervenor, and F, entrusted the shares of this case to the defendant. The independent party intervenor asserts that the title trust was terminated with respect to each share of 1,381 shares, which falls under 2/11 of the shares of the independent party intervenor among the shares of this case, based on the delivery of a copy of the application form by the independent party intervenor, the defendant is liable to implement the transfer procedure.

3. We examine, ex officio, whether the lawsuit by the independent party intervention is lawful or not.

In light of the above, the change of entry into the register of shareholders is merely a requisite for setting up against the transferee to exercise the shareholder's rights in relation to the company, and the transferee of the shares can independently prove that the transferee acquired the shares without the need for the transferor's cooperation, and thus, the transferee can request the company to change the entry into the register of shareholders. Thus, it does not have a benefit of action against the transferee of shares to compel the transferor to implement the change of entry

Therefore, it is sufficient to request the company of this case to implement the transfer procedure on the ground of termination of the title trust agreement with respect to the shares of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da16386, Oct. 27, 1992). An independent party participant seeking the return of the shares of this case is sufficient to seek implementation of the transfer procedure against the company of this case, and there is no legal interest to seek implementation of

Therefore, the lawsuit by the independent party of this case is unlawful.

4. Thus, the lawsuit of intervention by the independent party of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 1992. 10. 27. 선고 92다16386 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.29 2015가합521288

-의정부지방법원 2019.03.14 2018가단11817

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.02.13 2014가단13055

-대법원 2019. 5. 16. 선고 2016다240338 판결

-광주지방법원 2015.10.23 2015나2757