logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.10.16 2012가단32092
주주권확인등청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, on the ground that he/she acquired the shares from the Defendant Company C, a shareholder of the Defendant Company, sought reimbursement against the Defendant Company for the confirmation of ownership of the shares that he/she acquired as above, as well as for non-performance of the procedures and procedures for the transfer

As to this, the defendant acquired shares by the plaintiff.

Even if the defendant company violated the articles of incorporation of the defendant company, there is no effect as to the defendant company, and since the shares of C were already provisionally seized, the plaintiff's acquisition of the shares is invalid as it goes against the validity of the above provisional seizure.

2. On January 18, 2010, there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under which the Plaintiff acquired 4,260 shares of the Defendant Company from C.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the defendant company was established on September 5, 1979 and has not issued shares until now.

However, since six months have passed after its incorporation, the shares before the issuance of the share certificates can be transferred according to the method of transferring nominative claims in accordance with the purport of Article 335 (3) of the Commercial Code, and the contents thereof must be notified to the defendant company.

Meanwhile, according to the statement in Eul evidence 6, the defendant company amended the articles of incorporation on May 27, 2010, established a provision that limits the transfer of shares that requires the approval of the board of directors when transferring shares, and on the same day, registered the above contents in the corporate register (hereinafter "the amended articles of incorporation"). However, it is difficult to view that the above transfer of shares between the plaintiff and C was notified to the defendant company prior to the amendment of the above articles of incorporation only with the entries in evidence Nos. 2, 5, 7, and 8 and witness D and each statement in the corporate register (hereinafter "the amended articles of incorporation").

The Defendant Company’s shares on February 20, 2010 at the reply submitted on August 1, 2012, before the appointment of an agent.

arrow