Does Cervical Mucous Increase During Implantation

principle of the isolated approach in capital (§ 52 para 6 GmbHG)

in the business of record A ** GmbH has the sole partner, Carlo G ** fully geleistetes capital of € 35,000.
In the General Assembly on 23.9.2010 decided by the sole shareholder of a capital increase of € 65,000 to € 100,000, and he alone is authorized to acquire the share capital; item V. Statement of the establishment shall be modified accordingly.
sound capital decision is the amount of increase in the amounts of € 17,500 paid at the full within 7 days.

The capital increase will now be filed for registration in the commercial register, under submission of the General Protocol, adoption statement (in which the sole shareholder to pay the capital with a partial amount of Committed € 17,500), the clearance certificate and a bank confirming that the amount paid to the capital increase of € 17,500 for the disposal of the management of either (§ § 52 para 6 in connection with § 10 para 3 GmbHG).

This capital increase is contrary to the following ground for refusal:

Despite various contrary academic view, the Supreme Court is about the extent of the deposit requirement with respect to the capital sum based on the dt hM from the increasing amount ("the principle of isolated approach"), justifying this iS of the largest possible creditor protection so that the capital increase as it were understood as "additional foundation" and is created with it a further, independent liability fund. The performance obligation of the capital, as such, is thus fulfilled in the same manner as the original application of the share capital in the creation ( Ettmayer / Ratka in Straube, GmbHG § 52 para 108 with further references).

The deposit of only € 17,500 is contrary to the increased amount of € 65,000 so under § § 52 para 6, para 6 1 GmbHG (half term). On the capital amount would therefore be paid at least half, ie in concreto € 32,500.
that in order prior to the capital already fully paid share capital of € 35,000 in the end, actually € 52,500 - and thus more than half of the capital - would be paid enough, that is not enough.

supplementing and amending :

Maria Santner (Company registration law nurse at LG Innsbruck) has the below comment on this post quite rightly drawn attention to these ways of thinking and reasoning errors in my post:

§ 10 para 1 GmbHG sees as Mindestbareinlage not before the half, but only a quarter (of the increase in amount), but at least € 17.500, --. Accordingly, in the particular case - Even in light of the principle of isolated approach - enough of Mindestbareinzahlungsverpflichtung done enough.
In my argument I've turned off entirely by half clause of § 6 para 1 GmbHG, let § 10 para 1 GmbHG but ignored.