logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.09.19 2017가단118652
제3자이의
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the representative director of Plaintiff E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), Plaintiff B is the executive director of Plaintiff E, and Plaintiff D is the director of E.

B. In establishing E, the Plaintiffs respectively held title trust 20,000 shares out of the shares listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”) in the attached sheet to D.

On March 27, 2012, a certificate of stock ownership issued by E is written that this case’s stocks are held by D.

On the other hand, the shares of this case were not issued.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, on February 24, 2012, lent KRW 100,000,000 to D as of March 25, 2012.

At the time, D, while preparing a certificate of borrowing of the above loan, stated that “if D does not repay the loan, D shall cooperate with the seizure of E’s dividends held by D. or shall sell stocks and redeem them.”

Afterward, the Defendant, based on the above loan claim amounting to KRW 150,000,000 (the issue date June 8, 2012), prepared a notarial deed as a notary public’s No. 00269 on the basis of a deed 2012, and was issued an order for stock seizure with a claim amounting to KRW 150,000,000 on the instant shares issued by the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Order 201 on July 9, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant seizure order”) e.

On the other hand, on July 16, 2012, after the seizure order of this case, a notary public drafted a written agreement and a contract for share transfer and takeover to the effect that "the plaintiffs, on September 1, 2000, leased the shares of this case to D in a simple name to a nominal truster D through a title trust, and revoked this on April 2, 2012, and D shall return the shares originally trusted through a share sale and purchase contract to the plaintiffs."

(hereinafter “this case’s acquisition agreement”). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition / [this case’s acquisition agreement], Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 6, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4.

arrow