beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into a share transfer contract with the Defendant as stated in the text of the instant transfer deed, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the share transfer price to the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserted that the instant transfer certificate was merely formally prepared in the process of converting the Defendant into G’s representative director in order to avoid the status of the H’s joint and several surety at the Plaintiff’s request.
3. Determination
A. As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof, and shall not reject it without reasonable explanation. However, even in the case of a disposal document, if there is an express or implied agreement different from the content of the document, it may recognize facts different from the content of the document, and in interpreting the legal act of the originator, it may be freely determined as evidence to the extent that it does not violate the empirical and logical rules.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34643 Decided April 13, 2006, etc.). B.
1) On November 13, 2001, the Plaintiff established G by investing all capital in the name of its executive officers and employees, and owned a substantial portion of the shares. From November 15, 2007 to November 7, 201, H was deemed to be the representative director of the said company on the register. 2) The Plaintiff established M&A (hereinafter “M”) on October 18, 2002, and was going to be the auditor until July 201, and owned most shares and actually managed the said company. From March 17, 2006 to December 21, 201, H&A also operated the said company.