(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.29 2016나76147

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.29 2016나76147

명의개서절차 이행의 소

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2005, C, the representative director of the Defendant, prepared and delivered to D a certificate of stock custody (a certificate No. 1; hereinafter “certificate of stock custody”) stating that “A had a registered common share of 1,200 shares (5,000 won in face value) against the Defendant in the name of the Defendant.”

B. At the time of preparing the above certificate of stock custody C owned 32,00 shares out of 40,000 shares of the Defendant.

C. On February 19, 2016 and around 26, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that calls for change of ownership of shares. D.

On the other hand, the defendant's share certificates are not issued.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-2, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, according to the title trust agreement with D, the Defendant was transferred 1,200 shares owned by C from the Defendant’s representative director, pursuant to the title trust agreement with D, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to implement the transfer procedure for the shares indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff. 2) As to this, the Defendant did not transfer the Defendant’s shares to the Plaintiff, and 2) transferred the shares to the Plaintiff by C.

Even if this is a contract for a third party, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to express his/her intent of profit. The Plaintiff did not express his/her intent of profit for more than 10 years from June 2005, which was prepared with a certificate of stock custody, and the exclusion period was already limited. ③ Since D demanded the preparation of a certificate of stock custody for the purpose of acquiring unjust profit by taking advantage of his/her status as an executive of the small big start-up investment company at the time, the act of stock transfer in this case constitutes anti-social order and thus invalid.

B. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff acquired shares pursuant to the title trust agreement with D.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.18 2018가단5154854

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.09 2016가단5066755

-서울고등법원 2005. 7. 13. 선고 2004나59364 판결

-수원지방법원 2012.12.20 2012노1067

-부산지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단340258