beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The defendant (the former trade name: F Co., Ltd.) is a company established for the purpose of housing construction business, etc., and is a company that newly constructs and sells the main apartment on the surface of Suwon-si and 11 lots of land (hereinafter referred to as the "instant business").
Treatment Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Treatment Construction”) is a contractor of the instant project and a guarantor of interest on the PF loan obligations of the instant project.
G and J owned each of 35,000 shares issued by the Defendant’s total number of 70,000 shares, and each of 35,000 shares owned by each of the Defendant’s shares in order to secure the PF loans of the instant project was established as Hyundai Switzerland Mutual Savings Bank, Hyundai Switzerland Mutual Savings Bank and Hyundai Switzerland Mutual Savings Bank.
As the Defendant was unable to repay the above PF loans, the Construction effected a senior pledge and its subordinate pledge on May 2, 201, which was acquired by the repayment party’s subrogation, to acquire KRW 70,000,00, in total, 35,000 of the Defendant’s shares owned by G and J, and transferred to H, K, and L KRW 7,00,00.
H, K, and L acquired the Defendant’s shares, and on May 4, 201, held a temporary general meeting of shareholders on the same day, dismissed the existing executives, appointed H as the representative director, and changed the trade name from “F Co., Ltd.” to “C” at the present “F Co., Ltd.”.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 8-1, the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiffs' wages and retirement allowances claims filed by the plaintiffs from Oct. 11, 2010 to Oct. 11, 2010, the plaintiffs are paid KRW 5 million per month in the case of plaintiff A, and KRW 2 million per month in the case of plaintiff B, and the defendant's model voucher E in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the defendant's operation (hereinafter referred to as the "instant model voucher"); and