logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.11 2015가단104769
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2012, the Plaintiff, along with Nonparty D and E, decided to establish F. (Capital KRW 50 million, KRW 100,000 listed stocks, KRW 500,00 per share, and KRW 500 per share) as a corporation that manufactures and sells booms for vehicles, along with Nonparty D and E.

B. From among 100,00 shares of the above company established thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired 50,00 shares, 30,000 shares of Defendant B, the wife of D, and 20,00 shares by Defendant C, the wife of E, respectively, and the above share acquisition price was fully paid by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to underwrite the shares of F Co., Ltd., and therefore, the plaintiff did not have the funds to pay the shares, and thus, the plaintiff borrowed the share price to the plaintiff. The plaintiff raised the share price of KRW 50 million and transferred it to the corporate account. The plaintiff paid the share price of KRW 15 million to the defendant C, and the share price of KRW 10 million to be paid by the defendant C. The plaintiff borrowed each of the above money to the defendants. The defendants did not pay the above money after the defendants agreed to pay the above money for the three-month period. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant sought each of the above loans against the defendants.

B. The reasoning of the judgment is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants borrowed each of the above shares from the Plaintiff on the sole basis of each of the items of Gap 1-8 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow