trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm naySupreme Court Decision 2011Da112247, 112254 Decided December 12, 2013 about Stock Transfer Proceedings, etc

Main Issue and Holding

In a case where share certificates were re-issued upon a judgment of nullification nullifying previous certificates, but then a suit of objection was filed against trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment, and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay trial cancelling trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment was announced and finalized, whether trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay owner of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay re-issued certificates may bona fide acquire trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay certificates afterwards (negative)

Summary of Decision

Article 360(1) of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Commercial Act provides that “a share certificate may be invalidated through process of public summons,” and Article 360(2) of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same Act provides that “no person who has lost his/her share certificate shall request its re-issuance to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay company, unless he/she has obtained a judgment of nullification with respect thereto.” This means that a share certificate is a marketable security that certifies ownership of stocks, so an additional share certificate which certifies trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same stocks cannot be issued without nullifying trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay original share certificate. Therefore, a share certificate which is re-issued without a judgment of nullification violates trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above provisions, and is thus invalid. Meanwhile, a judgment of nullification against a stock or certificate is only effective to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay extent of recovering trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay public summons applicant’s status so that it is on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same level as trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay status when he/she owns trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay relevant stock or certificate, and does not finalize that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay applicant is trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay actual rightsholder. Therefore, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rightful rightsholder of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay stock or certificate does not lose actual rights even in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case of a judgment of nullification, but is merely unable to exercise his/her rights regarding trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay stock or certificate. And if a suit of objection is filed against trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment of nullification in accordance with Articles 490 and 491 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act, and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay following decision finalizes cancelment of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment of nullification, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment becomes retroactively ineffective, and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay stock or certificate owned by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rightful rightsholder retroactively recovers its effectiveness. Yet in cases such as trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above, where trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment of nullification is cancelled but trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay share certificates re-issued based on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment before its cancellation remains effective and can be bona fide acquired, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rightful rightsholder may lose his/her rights or is unable to exercise trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rights. This is a harsh conclusion for trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rightful rightsholder who has never actually lost trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay share certificate and actively cancelled an unjust judgment of nullification through a suit of objection, and also contradicts trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay purpose of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act which is to protect rightful rightsholders by enabling them to cancel judgments of nullification acquired by an unentitled person through falsehood or other illegitimate means through a suit of objection. Additionally, neither trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act nor trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Commercial Act has provisions regulating trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay effectiveness of cancellation trials against a judgment of nullification. Therefore, even where certain share certificates were re-issued upon a judgment of nullification nullifying previous share certificates, if a suit of objection was filed against trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment, and subsequently a judgment of cancellation is announced and finalized, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay re-issued certificates can be retroactively nullified and their owners cannot bona fide acquire them afterwards.

Reference Provisions Articles 359 and 360 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Commercial Act, Article 21 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Check Act, Articles 490, 491, 496, 497 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act,

Article 359 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Commercial Act (Bona Fide Acquisition of Share Certificates) trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay provisions of Article 21 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Check Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to share certificates. [This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 3724, Apr. 10, 1984]

Article 360 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Commercial Act (Judgment of Nullification and Re-issuance of Share Certificates) (1) A share certificate may be invalidated through process of public summons. (2) No person who has lost his/her share certificate shall request its re-issuance to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay company, unless he/she has obtained a judgment of nullification with respect thereto.

Article 21 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Check Act (Check Acquired in Good Faith) Where any person has been dispossessed of a check for any reason, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay holder of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay check shall not be bound to relinquish trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay check, if trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay check is a bearer check or trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay holder of a check transferable by endorsement establishes his/her title pursuant to Article 19. However, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same shall not apply where trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay holder has acquired it in bad faith or by gross negligence. [This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 10197, Mar. 31, 2010]

Article 490 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act (Litigation of Objection against Nullification Judgment) (1) A nullification judgment shall be subject to no appeal.

(2) Against a nullification judgment, an appeal may be filed before trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court of summons by a lawsuit against trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay requester, if it falls under any one of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay following subparagraphs: 1. When it is trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case where any procedure for public summons is not permitted by Acts;

2. When a public notice on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay public summons has not been made, or it has not been made in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay manner as prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. When trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay period of public summons has not been observed;

4. When trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judge who rendered trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment has been excluded from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay exercise of his duties pursuant to Acts;

5. When trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay provisions as to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay exclusive jurisdiction have been violated;

6. When trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment has been rendered in violation of Acts, even in spite of an existence of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay report on a right or claim;

7. When trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay nullification judgment has been obtained by a falsity or unlawful means; and

8. When there exist any reasons for a retrial under Article 451(1)4 through 8.

Article 491 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act (Period for Institution of Lawsuit) (1) trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay lawsuit under Article 490(2) shall be instituted within one month.

(2) trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay period under paragraph (1) shall be an invariable period.

(3) trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay period under paragraph (1) shall be reckoned from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay date on which trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay plaintiff has come to know about trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay existence of a nullification judgment: Provided, That in case where trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay lawsuit is instituted by stating trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay grounds under Article 490(2) 4, 7 and 8, it shall be reckoned from trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay date on which trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay plaintiff has come to know about trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay existence of such grounds.

(4) This lawsuit shall not be instituted if three years have elapsed since trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay date on which a nullification judgment has been pronounced.

Article 496 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act (Declaration of Nullification Judgment) In a nullification judgment, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay invalidity of securities or deeds shall be declared.

Article 497 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act (Effect of Nullification Judgment) When a nullification judgment has been rendered, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay requester therefor may allege trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay right based on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay securities or deeds against trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay person to bear trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay obligation pursuant to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay securities or deeds.

Reference Case Supreme Court Decision 67Da1731, Sept. 26, 1967 (Jip 15-3, Min 157)

Plaintiff-Appellee KRNC Co. (Seyang Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Gwang-hoon, et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Defendant-Appellant Sambo Development Co. (HM Law Office, Attorney Jwa Sae-joon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Independent Party Intervenor Comtec Systems Co., Ltd.

Judgment of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court below Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na51535, 53876 decided November 20, 2011

Disposition trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay appeal is dismissed. trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant.

Reasoning trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Article 360(1) of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Commercial Act provides that “a share certificate may be invalidated through process of public summons,” and Article 360(2) of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same Act provides that “no person who has lost his/her share certificate shall request its re-issuance to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay company, unless he/she has obtained a judgment of nullification with respect thereto.” This means that a share certificate is a marketable security that certifies ownership of stocks, so an additional share certificate which certifies trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same stocks cannot be issued without nullifying trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay original share certificate. Therefore, a share certificate which is re-issued without a judgment of nullification violates trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above provisions, and is thus invalid.

Meanwhile, a judgment of nullification against a stock or certificate is only effective to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay extent of recovering trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay public summons applicant’s status so that it is on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay same level as trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay status when he/she owns trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay relevant stock or certificate, and does not finalize that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay applicant is trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay actual rightsholder. Therefore, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rightful rightsholder of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay stock or certificate does not lose actual rights even in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case of a judgment of nullification, but is merely unable to exercise his/her rights regarding trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay stock or certificate (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da1731, Sept. 26, 1967, etc.). And if a suit of objection is filed against trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment of nullification in accordance with Articles 490 and 491 of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act, and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay following decision finalizes cancelment of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment of nullification, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment becomes retroactively ineffective, and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay stock or certificate owned by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rightful rightsholder retroactively recovers its effectiveness.

Yet in cases such as trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above, where trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment of nullification is cancelled but trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay share certificates re-issued based on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment before its cancellation remains effective and can be bona fide acquired, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rightful rightsholder may lose his/her rights or is unable to exercise trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rights. This is a harsh conclusion for trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay rightful rightsholder who has never actually lost trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay share certificate and actively cancelled an unjust judgment of nullification through a suit of objection, and also contradicts trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay purpose of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act which is to protect rightful rightsholders by enabling them to cancel judgments of nullification acquired by an unentitled person through falsehood or other illegitimate means through a suit of objection. Additionally, neither trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Civil Procedure Act nor trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Commercial Act has provisions regulating trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay effectiveness of cancellation trials against a judgment of nullification.

Therefore, even where certain share certificates were re-issued upon a judgment of nullification nullifying previous share certificates, if a suit of objection was filed against trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment, and subsequently a judgment of cancellation is announced and finalized, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay re-issued certificates can be retroactively nullified and their owners cannot bona fide acquire them afterwards.

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court below determined that when a trial cancelling a judgment of nullification is finalized, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment is then retroactively ineffective and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay state prior to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment is recovered, so a share certificate re-issued upon trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay judgment is ineffective in itself since it was doubly and illegitimately issued, and thus trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay independent party intervenor may not bona fide acquire re-issued certificates, even if he/she acquired them.

Upon examining trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay records in light of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay above legal principles, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court below’s aforementioned determination is just, and contrary to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay allegations in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay legal principles on trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay effectiveness of a judgment of nullification or trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay bona fide acquire of re-issued share certificates.

B. Meanwhile, as trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay independent party intervenor’s bona fide acquire of re-issued certificates are not acknowledgeable, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay ground of appeal allegation that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay status of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay intervenor who bona fide acquired re-issued share certificates takes priority over that of trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay Plaintiff who is merely trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay security owner is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court below determined that since trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay case of application for deciding stock purchase price finalized that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay purchase price for trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay stock of this case is 3,116,380 won per 1 stock, Defendant may no longer argue that trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay price decided by trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court is too high.

Upon examining trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay records in light of related legal principles, trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay court below’s aforementioned determination is just, and contrary to trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay allegations in trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay legal principles on stock purchase price in accordance with exercise of purchase claims.

3. Conclusion

Therefore trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay appeal is dismissed, and trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay costs of appeal are assessed against trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay defeated party. It is decided as per Disposition at trực tiếp bóng đá euro hôm nay assent of all participating Justices.

Justices

Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)

Yang Chang-soo (Justice in charge)

Park Byoung-dae

Kim Chang-suk