logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.08.18 2015가단207466
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On August 10, 201, the Defendant Company asserted that the Plaintiff Company purchased 10% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff Company, an Indones Coal Mine Corporation, at US$ 16.6 million. In the course of such investment, the Defendant Company promised to purchase 10% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff Company to the representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

Nevertheless, the defendant company refused to make an investment in the plaintiff company, because it is difficult to make an investment in resource development due to global depressions.

As such, as the Defendant Company suffered a big difficulty in raising funds, the Plaintiff Company was liable to compensate the Plaintiff Company for KRW 100,000,000 as a part of the damages.

2. In full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 6 of the judgment, it is recognized that the Defendant Company acquired 10% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff Company on August 10, 201, and thereafter, the Defendant Company sent an official document to the Plaintiff Company on November 16, 2012, and “if the position of the Plaintiff Company and Samsung C&T is decided on the acquisition of shares, it will make a decision on the details of the additional acquisition after re-evaluation of mining value in mutual consultation.”

However, solely based on the above facts, the Defendant Company promised to acquire 10% of the shares issued by it to the Plaintiff Company.

It is difficult to deem that such an investment contract has been concluded in a clear manner, or that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above, even if comprehensively considering other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff Company in addition to the above facts.

Therefore, the plaintiff company's claim for damages based on this premise is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff company's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow