beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. As to KRW 34,700,000 among Plaintiff B and KRW 130,000,000 among them, from January 16, 2014 to December 15, 2017
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff B loaned KRW 120 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 150 million up to January 15, 2014. (2) Plaintiff B paid KRW 120 million to the Defendant KRW 30 million on November 29, 2012, and KRW 50 million on November 30, 2012, KRW 30 million, and KRW 50 million on November 30, 2012, KRW 40 million and KRW 120 million on December 26, 2012.
3) Meanwhile, on the other hand, on November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff B and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed on money consumption loan contract with a notary public No. 5153 of the 2012 General Law Office No. 2012, and the main contents are as follows. The obligee under Article 1 (Purpose) lent KRW 150,00,000 to the obligor on November 29, 2012, and the obligor borrowed it. The obligee is repaid in full by January 15, 2014. Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) Article 3 (Interest Interest) (Public Interest) and Article 5 (Public Interest) (Damages) (Public Interest) Plaintiff B and the Defendant Defendant (C)
B. The Defendant’s breach of trust and criminal judgment 1) The Defendant is either the Plaintiff B and the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) in the middle of August 2013.
(2) On August 13, 2013, the Defendant was delegated to Plaintiff B with the establishment of the Company and received KRW 30 million under the name of capital on the part of the Plaintiff B, and the Defendant invested KRW 20 million in capital, and agreed to distribute KRW 51 million among the shares of the Company to Plaintiff B, and KRW 49% to the Defendant.
However, on August 20, 2013, the Defendant established the Plaintiff Company with a capital of KRW 20 million invested by the Plaintiff Company without having contributed to KRW 30 million, which the Defendant agreed to make an investment, and without having notified the Plaintiff B, 51% of the shares of the Plaintiff Company was distributed to the Defendant’s wife B and 49% of the shares of the Plaintiff Company.
3 The prosecutor violates the duty of the defendant to establish a company with a 100% stake in the shares of the plaintiff B to the defendant's wife, barring any special circumstance, and thus, shares equivalent to 49% of the shares are owned by the defendant's wife.