logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2015.07.08 2013나862
주식양도
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

The total costs of the lawsuit.

Reasons

In accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part of “1. Basic Facts” among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance court concerning the preparation of a share transfer agreement

(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the forgery of the instant agreement is based on the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff’s primary shares issued by C (hereinafter “C”) to the Defendant and the Defendant’s primary shares issued by C (hereinafter “C”).

The transfer of this case’s shares is preliminaryly sought the confirmation of the shareholder rights of this case’s shares. Accordingly, the Defendant first requested the Plaintiff to delegate the authority to the shares of this case, and signed and sealed the instant agreement with the knowledge that the Plaintiff requested additional signatures and seals on the power of attorney without showing the main text of the instant agreement and signed and sealed on the power of attorney. Thus, the instant agreement is not legally binding. The Defendant asserts that the instant agreement is not legally binding. The Defendant’s proof is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff has forged the instant agreement, and there is no other evidence, contrary to the overall purport of the pleadings, if the Plaintiff appears in the statement in Gap evidence No. 11 and Eul evidence No. 4, and the prosecutor filed a complaint with the Plaintiff on suspicion of forging the private document, etc. after investigation, but the court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, and thus, it is difficult to prove the forgery of the instant agreement to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not lose its validity after the completion of the instant agreement.

The defendant's assertion of forgery cannot be accepted.

The existence of the contract of gift;

arrow