logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.03 2015나28141
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not notify the administrator B of the company bond of who is the creditor of the company bond of this case and did not inform the plaintiff as the actual investor of this fact. The plaintiff lost its rights because the plaintiff could not report the rehabilitation claim of KRW 255,00,000 at the time the rehabilitation procedure of this case was commenced.

If the corporate bonds of this case are entered in the list of rehabilitation creditors by the custodian B or reported within the reporting period, and confirmed as rehabilitation claims, the Plaintiff was entitled to at least 38,250 shares of 75% of the corporate bonds of this case, and at least 61,582,500 shares of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000, which is part of KRW 61,582,500, as damages for the reason of the Defendant’s breach of the fiduciary duty as to the instant bonds.

B. (1) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that the manager B requested that the Defendant be aware of who is an investor of the corporate bonds of this case, and that the Defendant, which was recorded in the account book of the Korea Securities Depository as the depositor by using the bond registration system without issuing the bond certificate of this case, notified that there was a decision to commence rehabilitation as to B or the Plaintiff, an issuer of the corporate bonds of this case, and notified the Plaintiff, an investor, of the decision to commence rehabilitation as to the corporate bonds of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is a trustee company is without merit.

(2) On the other hand, rehabilitation creditors are in rehabilitation procedures.

arrow