209Na60482 Shareholders' Confirmation, etc.

○○○ (OOO - OOOOO)

In Yangju-si ○○○○ 000 - 002 OOOO-dong OOO-dong in Yangju-si

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm Apex, Attorneys Lee Dong-science and Lee Hong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant

1. White○○ (0000 - 000000)

In Yangju-si ○○○○○○○○○○ apartment OOO-dongOO-dong O-dong in Yangju-si

O heading

2. ○○ (OO00 - 00000)

O2 OOOO -O 000 apartment OO ○○

○ Heading ○

[Judgment of the court below]

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Gahap6004 Decided May 22, 2009

July 23, 2010

September 3, 2010

1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:

Between the Plaintiff and Defendant White○○, the Plaintiff confirms that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, among shares 20,000 shares issued in ○○○ Mazin Co., Ltd. (an amount of KRW 5,000 per share), 9,400 shares (the nominal shareholder on October 30, 2002 on the shareholder registry).

Between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○, it is confirmed that the shareholder of 600 shares of 40,000 shares of ○○ Resource Co., Ltd. (one share amount of 5,000 won) is the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeals against the defendants are dismissed.

3. The total costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are individually borne.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. Between the Plaintiff and Defendant 00, shares issued by ○○ Resources Corporation

shares of 18,800 shares (the par value of 5,00 won per share) 10,000 shares (the par value of 5,00 won per share)

O) Shares 9,400 among shares of 20,000 shares of ○○ Mazin Co., Ltd. (5,000 shares per share)

Note (OOOO on October 30, 2002) confirms that each shareholder is the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

Between Defendant ○○, Co., Ltd., 40,000 shares of ○○ Resource Co., Ltd. (5,000 won per share)

Food 1,200 shares (nameed in the register of shareholders of October 30, 2002) confirm that the shareholder is the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

Each of the following facts may be admitted as follows: evidence Nos. 1 through 7, evidence Nos. 9 through 14, evidence No. 29, evidence No. 39, and evidence Nos. 8 through 11 (including evidence with abnormal numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

A. The facts related to ○○ Resources Co., Ltd. (1) were established on September 5, 2002 for the purpose of the intermediate waste treatment business, food and feed feed manufacturing business, etc. At the time of its establishment, the capital was issued 20,000 shares of total amount of KRW 100,000 (5,000 won per share) as the capital was increased to KRW 20,000,000 as the capital was increased to KRW 20,000,000.

(2) According to the share acceptance certificate, the share subscription form, the shareholder registry, the minutes of the inaugural general meeting, the minutes of the board of directors, etc. attached to the application for the registration of the establishment of the ○○ Resources stated that the Plaintiff among the 20,000 shares issued by the ○○ Resources as of September 5, 2002, the Plaintiff held 10,000 shares issued by the ○○○○○○○○○○, 9,40 shares, and 600 shares held by the ○○○○○○○○○○, respectively, and on the premise of such shareholder composition, the ○○○○ Resource held a inaugural general shareholders meeting and the board of directors and appointed the Plaintiff as the representative director and the director, the Defendant 0○○○○,

(3) According to the auditor resignation statement in the name of Defendant Lee ○, minutes of the board of directors, shareholders' list, extraordinary shareholders' meeting minutes, shareholders' allocation list, and new shares subscription statement attached to the application for a change registration of ○○○ resource on October 31, 2002, the composition of ○○ resource as of October 29, 2002, unlike issued and outstanding shares at the time of establishment, was treated as holding 10,00 shares among 20,000 shares, Defendant 00 shares, Defendant 00 shares, and 60 shares of ○○○○ (the Plaintiff’s birth). On the premise of this, ○○ resource was regarded as holding shares of 20,00 shares.

10. Ad hoc shareholders’ meeting was held on 29. 29. Around the same day, Defendant Lee ○○ selected and appointed leap as a new auditor according to Defendant Lee ○○’s resignation, and the board of directors was held on the same day and passed a resolution on the issuance of new shares to divide the new shares of 20,000 shares (one share value5,00 won) into shares and allocate them according to shares ratio.

As a result, on October 30, 2002, the register of shareholders was prepared stating that the Plaintiff held 20,000 shares for the issuance of ○○○○ Resources, Defendant 00 shares, and Defendant 18,80 shares, leap, 1,200 shares, as of October 30, 200, which was the due date for the payment of the said new shares.

(4) According to the minutes of the special shareholders' meeting attached to the application for the registration of change of ○○ Resources on June 27, 2007, ○○ Resources excluded Defendant 00 from the shareholders' composition, and held a special shareholders' meeting on June 20, 2007 on the premise that only the Plaintiff and leap are the shareholders, and appointed the Plaintiff as one director and one auditor, and on June 27, 2007, the registration of the retirement of the director against Defendant 00 was completed on June 27, 2007. (5) The Defendants filed an application for provisional disposition to suspend the performance of duties with the Plaintiff and the acting director on the ground that there was no resolution of the shareholders' general meeting on October 29, 2002 and the resolution of the shareholders' general meeting on June 20, 2007.

On January 208, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against ○○○ Resource to confirm the absence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, which falls under the main text of the above provisional disposition case, with the Jung-gu District Court 20 B/L joint 20 B/L. On January 15, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment that the general meeting of shareholders, which held on June 20, 2007, appointed ○○ Resource as a director, as an auditor, without giving a notice of convening a notice to ○○○ and ○○○○, a shareholder equivalent to 48.5% of the total stocks, shall be confirmed, and the resolution shall not exist. Of the Defendants’ request, it was confirmed that ○○ Resource does not have a resolution to appoint ○○ as an auditor on October 29, 2002. The above judgment became final and conclusive on February 2009.

( 6 ) 원고는 2008. 6. 26. 피고들을 상대로 이 사건 제1심 법원인 의정부지방법원 20●●가합●●●●호로 주주확인의 소를 제기하였으나 2009. 5. 22. 패소 판결이 선고되자, 2009. 6. 5. ○○ 자원의 임시주주총회와 이사회를 개최하여 원고와 친족관계에 있는 윤 을 대표이사, 김●●을 이사, 양●●를 감사로 선임하였다. 당시 원고와 이○ 자원은 ○○자원의 발행주식 중 피고 백○○이 18, 800주, 피고 이○○가 적어도 600주의 주식을 보유하고 있음을 전제로 피고들에게 주주총회 소집통지를 보내기는 하였으나, 이들의 주주총회 참석을 제지하고 원고와 윤 만이 주주로 참석한 상태에서 주주총회를 개최하였는데, 피고들은 2009. 6. 경 윤●●, 김●●, 양●●을 상대로 하여 의정부지방법원 200● 카합●●●호로 ' ○○ 자원의 2009. 6. 5. 자 주주총회의 결의가 존재하지 아니하므로 그 본안판결 확정시까지 이들의 직무집행을 정지하여 달라 ' 는 가처분신청을 하였고, 위 법원은 2009. 7. 8. 가처분신청을 받아들이면서 이사 및 대표이사 직무대행자로 장●●을, 감사 직무대행자로 김을 선임하는 결정을 하였다 .

피고들이 2009. 6. 경 ○○자원을 상대로 위 가처분사건의 본안에 해당하는 주주총회결의 부존재확인의 소를 의정부지방법원 20●●가합●●●●호로 제기하자, 원고는 직무집행정지로 인하여 ○○자원의 경영권을 제대로 행사하지 못하는 상태가 장기화될 것을 우려하여 2009. 9. 29. 대표이사 윤●●을 통하여 피고들의 청구를 인낙하였다 .

Accordingly, the management right of ○○ Resources has been able to exercise the representative director, the plaintiff, the defendant 00, and the auditor.

( 7 ) 한편, ○○ 자원의 설립 당시 발행주식대금은 2002. 9. 5. 원고 개인의 ●●●● 은행 계좌 ( ○○○ - ○○○○○○ - ○○ - ○○○ ) 에서 1억 원이 출금되어 ○○자원의 ●●●●은행 계좌 ( OOO - 000000 - 00 - 000 ) 에 입금되는 방식으로 납입되었다. 그런데 원고의 위 ●●●●은행 계좌에는 2002. 9. 2. 피고 이○○ 명의로 1억 원이 입금되었다. 그 무렵부터 2002. 10. 28. 이전까지 원고의 위 계좌에는 위와 같이 입출금된 1억 원 이외에 300만 원 이상의 금원이 입출금된 사실이 없고, 위 1억 원을 제외하면 위 기간 동안 위 계좌의 잔고는 약 마이너스 800만원에 머물렀다 .

○○ 자원의 증자 당시 발행주식대금은 원고의 위 ●●●●은행 계좌에서 2002 .

10. 29. 출금된 2억 원 중 1억 원이 2002. 10. 30. ○○ 자원의 ●●●●은행 계좌 ( ○○○○ - ○○○○ - ○○○○ - ○○○○○○ ) 에 입금되는 방식으로 납입되었고, 출금된 2억 원 중 나머지 1억 원은 뒤에서 보듯이 주식회사 ○○게르마늄의 설립 자본금으로 납입되었다. 원고가 위와 같이 원고의 계좌에서 2억 원을 출금하기에 앞서 2002. 10. 28. 위 계좌에는 윤 - 명의로 3억 원이 입금되었다 .

나. 주식회사 ○○게르마늄 관련 사실 ( 1 ) 주식회사 ○○게르마늄 ( 이하 ' ○○게르마늄 ' 이라고만 한다 ) 은 2002. 10. 30. 침구류 제조업, 건강용품 제조업 등을 목적으로 설립된 회사인데, 설립 당시부터 자본금은 1억 원으로 총 20, 000주 ( 1주 금액 5, 000원 ) 의 주식을 발행하였다 . ( 2 ) ○○게르마늄의 설립등기 신청서에 첨부된 주주명부, 창립총회의사록, 이사회 의사록 등에 의하면, 2002. 10. 30. 당시 ○○게르마늄의 발행주식 20, 000주 중 원고가 10, 000주, 피고 백○○이 9, 400주, 김▲▲이 600주의 주식을 각 보유하고 있는 것으로 기재되어 있었고, 이러한 주주구성을 전제로 하여 ○○게르마늄은 창립주주총회와 이사회를 개최하여 원고를 대표이사 겸 이사, 피고 백○○을 이사, 김▲▲을 감사로 선임하였다 .

( 3 ) ○○게르마늄의 상업등기부에 의하면, ○○ 게르마늄은 2007. 8. 1. 개최된 주주총회에서 원고를 1인 이사로, 이▲▲을 감사로 선임하였다가, 2008. 8. 2. 개최된 주주총회 및 이사회에서 새로이 원고를 대표이사, 송▲▲을 이사, 김●●을 감사로 선임하였다 .

( 4 ) 피고 백○○은 2008. 4. 경 ○○게르마늄을 상대로 원고를 1인 이사로, 이▲▲을 감사로 선임한 2007. 8. 1. 자 주주총회결의 부존재확인의 소를 의정부지방법원 200●가합●●●●호로 제기하였는데, 위 법원은 2009. 5. 22. ' ○○게르마늄이 2008. 8 .

2. 개최한 주주총회에서 원고와 송▲▲을 이사로, 김●●을 감사로 선임한 결의가 소집권자 이외에 그 절차나 내용에 다른 하자가 있다는 사정이 없으므로, 2007. 8. 1. 자 주주총회결의 부존재확인의 소는 확인의 이익이 없어 각하한다 ' 내용의 판결을 선고하였고, 위 판결은 2009. 8. 경 피고 백○○의 항소취하로 확정되었다 . ( 5 ) 한편, ○○게르마늄의 설립 당시 발행주식대금은 2002. 10. 29. 원고 개인의 ● ●●●은행 계좌 ( OOO - 000000 - 00 - 000 ) 에서 출금된 2억 원 중 1억 원이 2002. 10. 29. 출금되어 ○○게르마늄의 ●●●●은행 계좌 ( OOO - OOOO - O000 ○○○○○○ ) 에 입금되는 방식으로 납입되었고, 출금된 2억 원 중 나머지 1억 원은 앞에서 보듯이 ○○ 자원의 증자 자본금으로 납입되었다. 원고가 위와 같이 원고의 계좌에서 2억 원을 출금하기에 앞서 2002. 10. 28. 원고의 위 계좌에는 윤 - 명의로 3억 원이 입금되었다 .

2. The plaintiff's assertion

○○○ Resource and ○○○ Mazinum are all one of the Plaintiff’s capital increase. Among 40,000 shares issued by ○○○○○○○ on October 30, 200, the shares indicated in the name of Defendant 0○○ on the shareholder registry, and the shares indicated in the name of Defendant 0○○○ on the above shareholder registry - The shares alleged in the name of Defendant 1,200 shares, 20 shares, 20 shares issued by ○○○○ Mazin on the shareholder registry on October 30, 200, and 9,40 shares issued by Defendant 0 on the shareholder registry on October 30, 202, each of the above shares is owned by the Plaintiff to ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ 6 shares whose shares are alleged to be one’s own shares, and the Plaintiff’s shares in the name of Defendant 18,800 shares in title trust and 400 shares at that time.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proof

A person registered as a shareholder in the register of shareholders is presumed to be a shareholder of the company, and in order to reverse this, there is a burden of proof on the part of denying the relevant shareholder's right. Thus, in order for a third party to assert that there is a separate shareholder as a nominal shareholder, the nominal shareholder should prove the borrowed fact in the name of claiming a title trust relationship. Even if a third party, other than a shareholder, in the register of shareholders, has committed an act of paying the purchase price of shares, the underlying causes of such act can be presented in various forms of legal relations, such as a title trust relationship, such as a trade relationship under which one party's own investment duty, or a simple loan relationship between the purchase price of shares, and thus, merely because a third party paid the purchase price of shares, the third party cannot be deemed as a real shareholder based on a title trust relationship under the name of the shareholder.

In the light of the underlying relationship and the underlying relationship, it is necessary to find out the nominal lending of shares.

B. As acknowledged earlier, determination on the claim for confirmation of shareholder of ○○ Resources (1) is made on the share acquisition price at the time of the establishment and increase of ○○ Resources.

명의의 ●●●●은행 계좌에서 출금된 금원이 ○○ 자원의 ●●●●은행 계좌에 입금되는 방식으로 납입되었고, ○○자원의 설립 당시부터 지금까지 원고가 ○○ 자원의 대표이사를 맡아 ○○ 자원을 주도적으로 경영해 왔으나, 한편 ○○ 자원이 설립될 무렵 피고 이○○ 명의로 원고의 은행계좌에 입금된 1억 원이 설립 자본금의 재원으로 사용된 것으로 보이고, 위 1억 원은 현재 ○○자원의 자본금 2억 원의 절반에 해당되는 금액인 점, 피고들이 " 위 1억 원은 주식납입대금 명목으로 피고들이 원고에게 송금한 것이다 " 라는 취지로 주장함에 대하여, 원고는 " 원고가 피고 이○○로부터 위 1억 원을 토지 매수대금 명목으로 차용하였다가 2002. 11. 경부터 2005. 7. 경까지 사이에 피고 백○○이나 그의 남편인 서▲▲을 통하여 피고 이○○에게 변제하였고, 주식인수대금은 원고가 2002. 9. 5. 김 ▼ ▼으로부터 차용하여 납입하였으며, 납입 후 즉시 그 돈을 찾아 김▼▼에게 변제하였다 " 고 주장하나 원고의 위 주장을 인정할만한 자료가 부족한 점, 이○ 자원의 설립등기 신청서에 첨부된 주주명부에 ○○ 자원의 발행주식 20, 000주 중 피고 백○○이 9, 400주, 피고 이○○가 600주의 주식을 보유하고 있는 것으로 기재되어 있는 점, 피고들도 2002. 10. 29. 주주총회를 통하여 피고 이○○가 ○○ 자원의 감사직에서 퇴임하고 윤 이 새로운 감사로 취임하는 것을 받아들인 것으로 보이고, ○○자원의 2002. 10. 31. 자 변경등기 신청서의 관련 서류에는 피고 백○○의 인감이 날인되어 있고, 피고 이○○의 사임서와 인감증명서가 첨부되어 있기는 하지만, 그러한 사정만으로 피고들이 피고 이○○ 명의의 주식 600주를 윤 에게 양도하거나 이전하는 것까지 동의하였다고 볼 수는 없고, 의정부지방법원 20●●가합●●●호, 20●●가합 ●●●●호 사건의 결과도 피고들이 위 주식을 보유하고 있음을 전제로 이루어진 점 등에 비추어 보면, 앞서 인정한 사실과 앞서 든 증거 및 갑 제15 내지 28호증, 갑 제32, 33, 34, 37, 38호증, 갑 제40 내지 49호증의 각 기재를 종합하여 보더라도 피고 백○○이 자신의 주식이라고 다투는 18, 800주, 피고 이○○가 자신의 주식이라고 다투는 1, 200주 중 600주 등 19, 400주 ( 18, 000주 + 600주 ) 의 실질주주가 원고라고 단정할 수 없다 .

(2) However, as seen earlier, the remaining 600 shares out of the 1,200 shares that Defendant Lee ○○ alleged as his own shares shall be deemed as the Plaintiff, and as long as Defendant Lee ○○ alleged as his own shares in the process of issuing new shares on October 30, 2002, the Plaintiff paid the price to him, which was allocated to him, and such issuance of new shares may not be readily concluded as null and void because of disregarding the preemptive rights of Defendant Lee ○○, an existing shareholder, but it cannot be said that the shares issued as above are invalid (this is the Plaintiff’s assertion that the shares are owned by himself and do not claim as null and void). In light of the above, inasmuch as Defendant Lee ○○ alleged as his shares are his own shares, the beneficial shareholders of the remaining 600 shares shall be deemed as the Plaintiff, and as long as Defendant Lee ○○ alleged as his shares in the remaining 600 shares, the Plaintiff shall have a benefit to seek such confirmation.

(3) Accordingly, a claim against Defendant 00 among the claim for confirmation of the shareholder of ○○ Resources is unfair, and the claim against Defendant 00 is just only for the part pertaining to 600 shares, and the remainder is unreasonable.

C. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of shareholder of ○○○ aluminium

There is no evidence to prove that there was a title trust agreement on 9,400 shares in the name of ○○○○, out of 20,000 shares issued in ○○○○○○○, among the shares issued in 0,000 shares. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid the total purchase price of shares at the time of the establishment of ○○○○○um, and so far, the Plaintiff operated ○○○○○○○○○○○○ by being in charge of the representative director of ○○○○umumum, and Defendant 00 did not have any fact that the Plaintiff either participated in or paid shares at the time of the

In light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 31, 35, 36, and 41, the defendant 00 repeats the claim that ○○○○○ constitutes the so-called “so-called “so-called Company”) on a document with no actual payment of shares, but considering that the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 31, 35, 36, and 41 cannot be deemed to be merely the ○○○○○○ Company on the document, it is determined that ○○○○○○ was the plaintiff’s title trust with the defendant 00.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of shareholder of ○○○○ in this part against the defendant 00 is justifiable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against ○○○○, among the claims against ○○○○, that ○○○○'s shareholder confirmation claim against 600 shares of ○○○○○○○, was accepted, and the plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants against ○○○○○'s shares are dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, the part of the plaintiff's appeal against ○○○○○'s claim against ○○○○○○'s shareholder confirmation among the claims against ○○○'s claims against ○○○, among the judgment of the court of first instance, against the plaintiff's 60 shares of ○○○'s 60 shares is revoked, and the part of the decision against the plaintiff's ○○○○'s claim against ○○○○'s ○○○'s shares of 20,00 shares of ○○○'s shares is confirmed as the plaintiff's shares of 40,000 shares and the remaining part of the appeal against the defendants is dismissed.

Judges Jo Hee-de

Judges Park Jong-yang

Judges Lee Sung-sung