beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 300,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from August 11, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 25, 2013, the Defendant assumed office as the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) who is engaged in the automobile transaction business, etc., and acquired 4,000 shares (e.g., face value 5,000 won) of the instant company’s shares.
B. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to transfer all the shares of the instant company owned by the Defendant and the business rights, assets, etc. to the Plaintiff. Upon entering into a contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the transfer price of KRW 300 million (i.e., KRW 75,000 per share transfer amount x 4,000), and the Defendant, upon receiving the said transfer price, shall deliver documents necessary for the said transfer and acquisition (hereinafter “the Defendant’s duty to deliver documents”), including the minutes of the creative meeting, to the Plaintiff at the time of receiving the said transfer price (hereinafter “the Defendant’s duty to deliver documents”), drafted a corporate transfer and acquisition agreement, and a share transfer agreement.
(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to the Defendant the said transfer price on the same day.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff paid all the transfer proceeds to the Defendant pursuant to the instant transfer/acquisition agreement, but the Defendant did not perform the obligation to deliver relevant documents even if the Plaintiff received demand from the Plaintiff several times, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant transfer/acquisition agreement on the grounds of delay in performance through the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint.
Even if the Defendant is not liable for delay of performance, the Defendant clearly expresses to the Plaintiff that he did not intend to perform his obligation under the transfer contract of this case, and the Plaintiff serves a duplicate of the complaint of this case.