logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.02.02 2017나32365
동산인도 등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant sales contract was valid under the premise that the instant sales contract was valid, and as long as the instant sales contract was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s representative director D’s cause attributable to D, the instant sales contract derived from the Plaintiff’s agreement on February 4, 2016 stipulating the specific implementation of the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract was invalidated.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot seek delivery of the instant machinery based on the instant sales contract.

B. Determination 1 A) The Plaintiff’s representative director D, Defendant, F, E, and G entered into the instant partnership agreement on November 11, 2015 with the following content:

1. Projects subject to the production, sale, and research and development projects of H products developed by the Defendant of the developer (IB and related products);

2. D’s investment is a provision of investment in cash requirements and management know-how, and the developer is the value of the technology developed by the Defendant and the results of future research and development.

3. The project shall be implemented by a company established by investing D in 100 million won.

B. On February 4, 2016, D and the Defendant, F, E, and G drafted a shareholder agreement with the following contents:

1. The agreement on technology and machinery in battle;

A. It is confirmed that the “technology-based enterprise that has developed a primary product” provided by the Defendant for 35% of the Plaintiff’s shares is all machinery and technology owned by the Defendant and the Defendant’s relatives necessary for manufacturing H, and that the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant as it does not include only company machinery.

B. The defendant shall transfer the company machinery to the plaintiff at KRW 1.7 million.

The payment of the transfer price is KRW 10 million on February 5, 2016.

arrow