beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to the intervention of the Plaintiff is the Intervenor, and the remainder is the remainder.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment is the same as that of the first instance court's judgment in addition to supplementing the first instance court's judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The 7th to 8th one of the court rulings of the first instance shall be placed in parallel with the following:
“Around January 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a legal office and legal advice contract with respect to the merger and acquisition (M&A) of the instant company, and had an O corporation perform part of the legal affairs related to the merger and acquisition on behalf of the Plaintiff. However, the Intervenor visited L legal office with the Plaintiff, received legal advice, transferred KRW 50 million from L legal office’s corporate account to L legal office’s account, and transferred KRW 13,456,300 on February 13, 2014 from L legal office’s account to L legal office’s account. In addition, the Intervenor transferred KRW 200 million transferred from the Intervenor’s account to the Plaintiff’s account, which was used as related legal advice and agency’s expenses, etc. In addition, the Intervenor did not prepare a loan for consumption between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.
(3) Each of the 11th two acts and 13th acts of the judgment of the first instance shall be construed as “before amendment by Act No. 12169, Jan. 1, 2014 (amended by Act No. 12738, Jun. 3, 2014)”.
2. Supplement of judgment
A. In addition to the various circumstances described in the first instance trial as to whether to recognize title trust of the instant shares, Gap's evidence Nos. 40, 11, 14 through 18, 20, 27, 31, 32, 41, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 7, 8, 18, 19, and the overall purport of the pleadings are as follows.