손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal concerning the conjunctive claim for damages caused by tort among the judgment of the court of first instance is filed.
The judgment of the court before the remanding of the case after the remanding of the case is the first instance court prior to the remanding of the case. As to the common shares 1,255,305 shares (hereinafter “the entire shares of this case”) held by the plaintiff as a result of the restructuring of the Haaks Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Haaks”) before the remanding of the case, the defendant is obligated to return the share certificates of this case to the plaintiff in accordance with the delegation or deposit relationship with the plaintiff. Since the defendant illegally sold the shares in violation of the fiduciary duty and thereby the obligation to return the share certificates of this case, which are a specific goods delivery obligation, was impossible to perform the obligation to return the share certificates of this case, the transfer compensation was made: < Amended by Act No. 4,299,419,625 won; Act No. 584,025 shares of this case; Act No. 584,250 shares of the entire shares of this case; Act No. 3090, Feb. 29, 2009>
The judgment prior to remand cannot be deemed to have established a legal relationship with which the plaintiff can directly seek the return of the entire shares of this case against the defendant. In particular, the part seeking damages for 584,025 shares among the main claims is dismissed on the grounds that it conflicts with the res judicata of the previous judgment, and the judgment prior to remanding the case rejected this part of the claim on the grounds that the " Out of the primary claims" is deemed to include the allegation, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the existence of the sale delegation contract, even though it is recognized that the existence of the sale delegation contract is not possible.
However, as pointed out in the Supreme Court Decision 201Da816 Decided October 11, 2012, the plaintiff's argument about the primary claim is delegated by the defendant, "the defendant", as pointed out in the Supreme Court Decision 201Da816 Decided October 1, 201.