logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.11.24 2016가단11288
주주지위확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant completed the registration of incorporation on May 22, 2013 and is a company with the purpose of an engineering work business, building work business, etc.

B. The current shareholder status of the Defendant Company was modified as shown in the annexed sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 9, order for submission to the Director of the Public Tax Office of this Court, reply and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not transfer 50% of the shares of the Defendant Company in the name of the Plaintiff on June 13, 2014, and the Plaintiff still owns 50% of the shares of the Defendant Company, thereby seeking confirmation.

B. Determination 1) The person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be the shareholder of the company, and in order to reverse this, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the part of denying the shareholder's rights (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2082, Mar. 26, 1985). According to the above facts, the plaintiff in the register of shareholders of the defendant company was not registered as a shareholder. However, there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff is a shareholder equivalent to 50% of the defendant company as of the date of closing the argument in this case. Rather, according to the evidence No. 5 and No. 26, according to the above evidence No. 5 and No. 26, the plaintiff entered into a share transfer contract with the plaintiff to C on June 13, 2014, and the plaintiff was found to have forged the defendant company's shares 5,000 shares of the defendant company under the name of the defendant company, but there is no suspicion of D's complaint. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow