beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "the defendant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court No. 2012Do1352, but the Supreme Court's decision has not yet been pronounced" in Part 13 of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance is that "the defendant appealed with the Supreme Court No. 2012Do1352, Jun. 11, 2015; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the above appellate court's judgment on the grounds that it is difficult to conclude that the crime of breach of trust against K or the crime of forging private documents or the crime of uttering of falsified private documents is established." Except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiffs at the court of first instance, it is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited as it is by the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant sold D's shares to the plaintiffs, and sold all of the I's shares that established D's shares by dividing D's shares to F. The defendant received 39.5 billion won from the defendant's individual and used H's personal purpose, such as lending 9.3 billion won to H to purchase F's shares. H bears liabilities corresponding to F's share value, and therefore did not have any asset value of the above shares.
Therefore, the above series of acts by the defendant constitute a default or tort under the stock transfer contract of this case, and as a result, the plaintiffs lose 5,000 shares of D and hold shares of H with no asset value. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused thereby.
B. Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff up to the trial and the circumstances of its assertion were considered, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant sold I’s shares to F and used the purchase price received for personal purposes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, according to the above evidence, the Defendant received from F.