logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.08 2013가단5137311
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) is a corporation for the purpose of life science research and development business, etc., Defendant F served as a director of each Plaintiff Co., Ltd. from February 17, 2006 to November 1, 2012 (from December 29, 2010 to March 14, 2012), Defendant G from February 17, 2006 to March 25, 2011 (from February 17, 2006 to December 29, 201) and Defendant H served as a director of each Plaintiff Co., Ltd from February 17, 2006 to December 31, 209.

Plaintiff

B, C, D, and E are the shareholders of the Plaintiff Company who made an investment in the Plaintiff Company from September 2009 to December 2010.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) Plaintiffs B, C, D, and E (hereinafter the above Plaintiffs are referred to as “Plaintiff investors”).

(2) From 2008 to 2009, the Defendants recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment to the effect that “The Plaintiff company is expected to enjoy enormous sales and operating profits by using I technology, which is the highest-tech medicine that is developed by the Plaintiff company, and may obtain considerable profits if it invests in the Plaintiff company,” and invested 150,000,000 won in the Plaintiff company from 30,000 to 2010 respectively to the Plaintiff company. (2) The Defendants were to establish the Plaintiff company and to operate the Plaintiff company on the first representative director of the Plaintiff company in 2007, with the aim of operating the Plaintiff company as the main business basis. However, the Defendants confirmed that K technology was not viable and that it was impossible to commercialize, which is an alternative to K technology, and developed an I-Tech patent application, which is currently a patent application for the Plaintiff company, and explained to the Plaintiff company during the lawsuit.”

3. After the Plaintiff’s investors made investments in the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff Company lost the patent suit with the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, and the registration of I Technology is refused.

arrow