Whether “A” can be deemed as a shareholder of the company if “B” acquires the shares of the company under the name of “B” and solely invests and pays the price of the shares, whether a simple nominal name holder “B” can be deemed as a shareholder of the company.

Where “A” acquires the shares of a company in its name with the consent of “B” and “B” did not merely make a capital contribution as a nominal lender, and “A” has made a capital contribution by independently investing the shares, “B” cannot be deemed as a shareholder of the company, who is a nominal borrower who actually received the shares and paid the price by acquiring the shares, as a shareholder of the company, and is merely a nominal lender.

Attorney Lee Young-il et al.

Attorney Park Nam-nam Electric Industry Corporation, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Scarein

Gwangju High Court Decision 74Na339 delivered on January 30, 1975

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff’s Attorney are also examined.

Based on the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established the defendant company with the name of the non-party 1 as well as the non-party 1's company's firm name after the 8.15 Sea, which had experienced the necessity of the establishment of a foundation other than an individual company, and had it established the defendant company in order to deliver its products to the authorities under the jurisdiction of the U.S. military. The above investment for the establishment of a company was made solely by the defendant company, but it was made by the defendant company with the consent of eight persons, such as the plaintiff's father's awareness, etc. to establish a corporation, with the above son's name borrowed to the defendant company's company for the purpose of acquiring the shares in the name of the defendant company and acquiring the shares in the form of the defendant company without any error in the fact-finding or the auditor's name, and it was not contradictory to the facts that the above son's name was merely nominal and actually acquired by the defendant company's independent investment in the defendant company before the incorporation of the defendant company, and it was not contradictory to the evidence that it did not affect the above facts that it was legitimate after the defendant company's evidence.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

However, according to the records, the defendant's attorney's assertion on the issue of appeal was argued to have borrowed his name in trust under the understanding of the non-party representative at the time of the incorporation of the defendant company. Accordingly, the plaintiff's attorney denies that the above trust was made, and the plaintiff's representative becomes the shareholder under the family trust agreement, even if the plaintiff's name was the shareholder under the family trust agreement, the defendant company could not deny the shareholder's right unless it is in accordance with the legitimate procedure of the opening of the name of the shareholder. Thus, the court below's decision that the non-party representative borrowed the name of the non-party representative's name, such as the non-party representative, and confirmed the fact that the non-party's company acquired the whole shares of the defendant company by acquiring the shares of the defendant company, and paid the shares, thereby rejecting the claim of the trust agreement as the plaintiff's assertion, and it is not necessary to examine and determine any more. Thus, there is no reason to reverse

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1, who acquired the shares of the defendant company under the name of the non-party 1 with the consent of the non-party 1, was merely a nominal lender, and the non-party 1, who did not make an investment in the name of the defendant company, made an investment in the name of the defendant company independently, and paid the price of the shares by the defendant's investment, it should be viewed that the above nominal borrower, who actually received the shares and paid the price of the shares, shall be a shareholder of the defendant company, and the non-party 1, who is merely a nominal lender, shall not be deemed a shareholder of the defendant company. Thus, the interpretation of Article 32 of the Commercial Act is justified, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the non-party 1, who acquired the shares at

No one cannot be employed to criticize the legitimate judgment disposition of the court below on the premise that he or she was aware of another opinion or erroneous fact-finding by the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)