logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.12.08 2015가단227083
양수금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs the amount of KRW 19,921,028 and each of the above amounts, from December 11, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The plaintiffs and the defendant are children of the deceased H, and the I clan (hereinafter "the clan") is the clan of this case.

2) The clans of this case consisting of 8 small members, and 8 representatives (J, K, L, M, Defendant, N,O, P) of each of the small members constitute a board of directors.

3) The Plaintiffs and the Defendant “ Qua (hereinafter “PP”) are the instant small wave.”

B. The clans' articles of incorporation of this case provide that matters concerning the disposal of real estate shall be resolved by the board of directors.

2) On May 24, 2005, the board of directors of the instant clans (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) shall be the real estate in the Chungcheong R, which is owned by the clans.

(1) Each of the instant resolution is subject to the resolution to sell the proceeds to the members of the relevant sub-committee (hereinafter referred to as “the instant resolution 1”) and distribute the proceeds to all the members of the relevant sub-committee (hereinafter referred to as “the instant resolution”).

3) According to the resolution of the instant case, the instant clan sold the instant real estate to Korea Construction Corporation around 2006, and paid a sum of KRW 165 million out of the purchase price (hereinafter “distribution of the instant clan”) to the Defendant, the representative of the instant clan, as the distribution of the instant subdivision.

4) On September 27, 2011, the Defendant paid KRW 25,552,800 as gift tax on the instant amount distributed to the Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office. 5) Different from the instant clans in the instant clans except for the instant subdivisions, the Defendant voluntarily distributed the money distributed to its members out of the purchase price to its members.

C. 1) However, the defendant, the representative of the dissolution of this case, did not distribute the shares of this case to the members of the clan of this case, and rather asserted the defects of the first resolution of this case. 2) As to this, the clan of this case held an extraordinary general meeting on June 6, 2015 and terminated the delegation of distribution of the shares of this case to the defendant, and the shares of this case against the defendant of the clan of this case following such termination.

arrow