ShinlaGen, sued for not giving 5.7 billion won in stock options to former executive… Defeat confirmed

Despite already losing the case, ShinilGen opposes forced execution
Filed another lawsuit, but still ended up losing
Supreme Court: ShinilGen must pay 5.7 billion won to former executive,

[Yonhap],
,
, ‘[Herald Economy=Reporter Ahn Seyeon] Despite a final decision that affirmed the need to allow a former executive to exercise stock options worth 5.7 billion won, ShinilGen, filed a separate civil lawsuit and once again lost. ShinilGen has lost all six lawsuits.’,
,
, ‘According to the legal community on the 26th, the 1st Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Noh Tae-ak) made a ruling in a lawsuit brought by ShinilGen against former executive A, requesting the cancellation of the “execution order (forced execution)” on the grounds of objection. The Supreme Court upheld that the initial judgement (2nd appeal) that ruled in favor of A was correct and finalized.’,
,
, ‘At the company’s shareholders meeting in 2016, ShinilGen granted 75,000 shares of stock options (exercise price 4,500 won) to executive A. However, the following year, ShinilGen notified A of the termination of his executive employment and canceled the grant of stock options. A started the first lawsuit in April 2018, arguing that ShinilGen’s actions were unfair.’,
,
, ‘The court ruled in favor of A in all six lawsuits, including the first and second instances. The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of A’s lawsuit, which was finalized in August 2019.’,
,
, ‘According to the final ruling, ShinilGen was required to deliver common shares worth 33,750,000 won and 75,000 preferred shares to A. If the forced execution of shares was not possible, ShinilGen had to pay 57,675,000 won to A.’,
,
, ‘However, the conflict did not end there. ShinilGen opposed the forced execution.’,
,
, ‘When the forced execution for share seizure was carried out at the headquarters, ShinilGen refused to execute the seizure, stating that it did not hold any shares. Eventually, A applied to the court for a monetary seizure and execution order, received a citation, but ShinilGen opposed it. ShinilGen filed another lawsuit against A, stating, “I object to A’s execution order.” Thus, the second lawsuit began.’,
,
, ‘In the trial, ShinilGen argued, “A did not follow the procedures for exercising stock options, such as submitting relevant documents,” and claimed that “A’s forced execution, by taking shares, amounts to an abuse of right as it is an unfair measure to only take money without fully fulfilling the obligations.” However, this argument was not accepted by the 1st and 2nd instances, as well as the Supreme Court.’,
,
, ‘In May 2020, the Seoul Central District Court’s 21st Civil Division (Director Kim Sang-hoon) ruled in favor of A.’,
,
, ‘The 1st trial court acknowledged the fact that A tried to follow the procedures for exercising stock options, stating, “There is no reason to believe that A had an improper purpose in exercising his claim.” The 2nd instance court, the 16th Civil Division of the Seoul High Court (Director Cha Moon-ho), also ruled in favor of A in December 2020, stating that “It is difficult to see circumstances that clearly demonstrate that the compulsory execution based on the final decision is significantly unfair or undermines justice.”‘,
,
, ‘The Supreme Court’s judgment was consistent with the lower courts. The Supreme Court finalized the decision, stating, “There is no misunderstanding of the law by the lower courts.” ‘,
,
,