beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's primary claim is changed from the court of first instance to the primary claim. The plaintiff's primary claim is changed to the primary claim for the return of the loan in the court of first instance. The reason for this part is that the judgment of this court is identical to the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the "Evidence A 1 through 5" in the third party 6, 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is applied to "Evidence A 1 through 6."
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. The gist of the assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff added the conjunctive claim at the trial; and (b) the gist is as follows. If the KRW 50 million was deposited into the stock price of the instant company as alleged by the Defendant, the face value of the instant company’s shares is KRW 50,000 per share; and (c) the Plaintiff should acquire 10,000 shares of the instant company.
However, the Plaintiff is registered as a shareholder who acquired only 1,00 shares of the instant company. This is because the Plaintiff, a major shareholder of the instant company, and a de facto manager of the instant company, has withdrawn unjust benefits by using the remaining 45 million won, excluding the Plaintiff’s total share price of KRW 50 million (=50 million per share x 1000 shares) paid by the Defendant as a major shareholder of the instant company (i.e., KRW 50 million) for personal purposes.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 45 million won and delay damages.
B. The burden of proving the facts of the general establishment of unjust enrichment in a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment is to be borne by the claimant for return (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da72786, May 29, 2008; 97Da21444, Oct. 24, 1997; 98Da61593, Apr. 27, 199). Each of the items of evidence Nos. 1 through 6 is insufficient to recognize that the defendant used the above KRW 45 million for personal purposes as the actual manager of the company of this case.