1. The Defendant entered the Plaintiff and the Defendant in attached Form C, which was concluded on May 11, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The fact of recognition (i.e., the trade name before the change: D) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was a corporation incorporated around May 2012 for the purpose of limited types of business, etc., and the Plaintiff served as a director of the Nonparty Company until May 2015.

The defendant was established around April 2012 for the purpose of manufacturing and processing agricultural, fishery, and livestock products, and operated a brand-type business, such as "E", "F", and "G".

B. On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (transferee) transferred 500 shares of the non-party company and 39,856,356 won to the Defendant. However, the Defendant paid 5,000,000 won to the Plaintiff up to April 30, 2017, paid 5% interest of the transfer price per annum until the payment date, and provided H (the representative director of the Defendant at that time) and I (the Defendant’s director at that time)’s shares as collateral for guarantee.

(hereinafter “this case’s acquisition agreement”). Consolidatedly, the Defendant did not offer the Plaintiff the shares of H and I as security, and did not pay interest on December 2016.

Applicant on February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rescission of the instant acquisition agreement on the ground that the Defendant did not perform his/her obligation under the instant acquisition agreement.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the acquisition agreement of this case was lawfully rescinded.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to notify the non-party company of the cancellation of the contract of this case.

2. On April 7, 2017, before the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming cancellation of the acquisition agreement as to the said claim (this court 2017Gahap51969), and asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a double lawsuit.

However, on November 14, 2017 before the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff amended the purport of the claim as a claim for share transfer price payment in the instant case, and thus, the Plaintiff Nos. 7 and 7.