(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.15 2014가단90863

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.15 2014가단90863

대여금

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

(1) On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiffs remitted each of the KRW 25 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant money”). On the same day, the Plaintiffs transferred each of the KRW 750 million shares to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) that the Defendant was the representative director, respectively.

In addition, the defendant acquired 100,000 shares of the non-party company on the same day by adding his own money to the total amount of KRW 50 million remitted from the plaintiffs.

See. The Plaintiffs were registered as internal directors of the non-party company on August 14, 2013.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The alleged plaintiffs asserted that the defendant should pay the above borrowed money to the plaintiffs on August 13, 2013 because it is necessary for the defendant to acquire shares of the plaintiffs. The defendant asserted that the defendant should pay the above borrowed money to the plaintiffs, and that it is not a borrowed money to the defendant, the representative director, in return for allowing the plaintiffs to acquire shares of the non-party company and participate in the management.

B. The facts that the plaintiffs remitted KRW 25 million to the defendant on August 13, 2013 are acknowledged as above. According to the evidence No. 7, with respect to the criminal case in which the defendant committed occupational breach of trust and occupational embezzlement against the non-party company, the plaintiffs appeared and make statements at the police station, and ask the plaintiffs about the circumstances in which the police officer took office as the shareholder of the non-party company, and the plaintiffs established a distribution company where the suspect (the defendant of this case) supplied the non-party company with the E trademark through the E-trademark and sold it.

The low-classs operated a canned manufacturing company under the trade name F (Representative Plaintiff A) and G (Representative Plaintiff B). The suspect was the person participating in the establishment of a company while he received and sold products produced by the company operated by the low-class.

Therefore, the non-party company.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.11.14 2016가단527900

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.21 2018가단131209

-대구지방법원 2020.06.18 2019가합201499

-대전지방법원 2014.12.18 2014가단11663

-서울동부지방법원 2012.10.30 2012가합2291