Plaintiff

Teb Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm P&K, Attorneys Kim Won-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

January 15, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

It is confirmed that the Plaintiff is a shareholder of the shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”).

1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

The Plaintiff sought confirmation through the instant lawsuit that the instant shares are owned by itself.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the registration was completed to the effect that on June 28, 2000, the capital of the defendant was 50,000,000 won as of June 28, 200, and the total number of issued shares was 10,000 shares. Of them, for 1,000 shares (10% of the total number of issued shares), the change of entry was completed in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant completed the registration to the effect that on November 17, 2001, the capital was 30,000,000 won, and the total number of issued shares was 60,000 shares, respectively. At that time, the shares of the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff was increased to 3,00 shares.

However, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant shares, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① From June 28, 2000 to May 1, 2003, Nonparty 1, who had worked as the representative director of the Defendant, was prosecuted as the charge of breach of trust on March 31, 2003, on which the Plaintiff, a partner, transferred the apartment construction business right to a third party without the Plaintiff’s consent. As to the above facts charged, the first instance court (Seoul High Court 2005No82 case) rendered a judgment of non-guilty in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2005No82 case) proceeding with the non-party 1’s appeal. Thereafter, the judgment of non-guilty by the appellate court (Supreme Court 2005Do4412 case) became final and conclusive. The appellate court made a judgment of non-guilty as to the above facts charged, one of the grounds for the judgment of innocence, and the capital of 300 shares in the instant case under the name of the Plaintiff was entirely paid by the non-party 1, and the Plaintiff was merely lent only in the form of the shareholder name.

② On March 31, 2003, Nonparty 1 forged a share sale contract under the name of the Plaintiff that the instant shares will be transferred to Nonparty 5 without consent, and subsequently, on April 1, 2003, Nonparty 2 was convicted of the facts constituting the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering that Nonparty 1 had Nonparty 2 submit the said contract to the public official in charge of the tax office (the case number is the same as the case number in the first instance court, the appellate court, and the final appeal court). The Plaintiff’s major grounds are supporting the Plaintiff as a shareholder of the instant shares. However, the purport of the aforementioned conviction is that Nonparty 1’s act of creating and using the document under the name of the Plaintiff constitutes the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff has ownership to the instant shares.

Rather, the appellate court of the above criminal case found Nonparty 1 guilty of the charge of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of the same, but explained that the instant shares were actually owned by Nonparty 1 as seen in the above (1).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Man Chang-ro (Presiding Judge)