(a) If the transferor transfers new stocks to a third party by acquiring new stocks through the consolidation after the stock transfer, the obligation to transfer new stocks to the old transferee becomes impossible;

(b) The time to calculate the amount of damages caused by the impossibility of performance of obligations shall be computed by the market price at which the obligations are impossible.

(a) If the transferor transfers new stocks to a third party by acquiring new stocks through the consolidation after the transfer of stocks, the obligation to transfer new stocks to the former transferee becomes impossible; and

(b) The time for calculating the amount of compensation for losses caused by impossibility of performance of obligations shall be calculated based on the market price of impossible performance.

Articles 390 and 393 of the Civil Act

Dongh Securities Co., Ltd. (Attorney Im-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant (Attorney Kang Han-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na108 delivered on September 11, 1964

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising from the plaintiff's appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the part arising from the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

The court below held that the defendant had a duty to deliver to the plaintiff 260 share certificates (10,00 share certificates) issued and delivered by the defendant as the defendant's Korean Electric Power Company, but the defendant transferred the above share certificates to the non-party and caused the non-party to be unable to perform his/her duty to deliver them, and that the court below determined that the defendant was liable for damages caused by illegal acts. The plaintiff acquired 200 share certificates from the defendant, Gyeongsung Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Gyeongsung Electric Co., Ltd.") from the defendant as a delegation book, but the court below did not have a duty to transfer the shares to the plaintiff on June 30, 1961, when the defendant did not take the procedure to transfer the shareholders' name of the company's shareholders, the defendant did not have a duty to transfer his/her share certificates to the plaintiff on the ground that he/she acquired the new shares to the non-party under the Korean Electric Power Co., Ltd. Act, and the defendant did not have a duty to transfer the shares to the plaintiff on the ground that he/she acquired the new shares (2000 share certificates).

The ground of appeal No. 2 and the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1

The decision of the court below is just in the decision that the contract for the sale and purchase of light shares with the plaintiff and the non-party Posting Securities Co., Ltd. recognized the contract for the sale and purchase of specific goods, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the delivery of new shares issued at the same time corresponding to the above light shares cannot be disposed of and delivered to the other party due to the request for delivery of the specific goods. In calculating the amount of damages, the decision of the court below is justified, and it is clear that the court below had followed the purport of the original decision that the court decided the time when the obligation

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 2

The court below's order to pay damages for delay at 156,00 won at the market price of shares as of October 25, 1961, which was 156,000 won at the market price of shares as of October 25, 1961 when the court below ordered the plaintiff to pay damages for delay after the date when the plaintiff's claim for transfer of shares at 260 shares was impossible due to the failure to perform his/her obligation to repay the new shares at the market price at the time of the defendant's failure to perform his/her obligation to perform his/her obligation to perform the new shares, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages for increase following the revaluation of the novel's property and for reimbursement of

Judgment on the ground of incidental appeal by Defendant 1

As long as the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff acquired this case as a blank delegation book and did not exchange the name in the register of shareholders, and the defendant issued and delivered the new stocks due to the merger of three companies, the judgment of the court below cannot be denied, and there is no reason for the above judgment of the court below.

Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

As seen in the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, as it stated in the ground of appeal No. 1, stated that it was a tort on the ground of accepting the claim for damages as seen in the instant case in the ground of judgment, and it is inappropriate to render such judgment. However, the entire original judgment does not seem to have recognized damages arising from the Defendant’s impossibility of performing the obligation to transfer new shares to be discharged to the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be said that there was an error in the lower court’s determination

Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6;

The court below held that the defendant, who is a transferee of a blank delegated book, issued and delivered only Korea-wide new shares corresponding to the old share that was transferred by the merger among three old shares in the register of shareholders. The defendant, as a natural effect of a contract of transfer to the old share that was transferred before the transfer, has a duty to follow the procedure of transfer of share certificates as to new shares. The above judgment is justifiable, and even if the old share owner returned to the original share holder, the above interpretation does not interfere with the above interpretation. Thus, the appeal is without merit.

The judgment on the ground of appeal No. 7

The court below's argument of comparative negligence is justified in rejecting the defendant's argument of comparative negligence as long as it is evident that the plaintiff did not object to the plaintiff's exercise of rights as the defendant's shareholder for a multi-year period that there is no relation to the defendant's default of obligations or damages.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Do-dong Do-won Nababri