B. The plaintiffs' remaining main claims and conjunctive claims against the trustee in bankruptcy of the Daewoo Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. are dismissed in entirety.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment regarding Defendant Treatment Line Marine Co., Ltd., two industry infrastructure Co., Ltd, Kim Jong-woo, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6, including Plaintiff 4’s claim expanded in the trial of the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the main claims against the above Defendants by Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the “purchase” column of attached Form 3. The “purchase” column of the unlawful claim is all dismissed.

B. Defendant Kim Jong- Co., Ltd, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 jointly and severally pay 5% of the annual interest rate from the date indicated in the column for “the initial date of interest in arrears” to each Plaintiff as indicated in the “Plaintiff” list of the amount of damages and the amount of the award in attached Form 1. The amount of money with 20% of the annual interest rate from the date indicated to November 6, 2008 and from the next day to the date of full payment.

C. The plaintiffs' remaining main claims and conjunctive claims against the defendant Kim Jong-woo, 5 and 6, the defendant Treatment Shipbuilding & Marine Co., Ltd., the two infrastructure Co., Ltd., the plaintiff 2's main claims, the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7's remaining main claims, and the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, the expenses incurred between the plaintiffs and the bankruptcy administrator in bankruptcy of Daewoo Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., which is the taking-off of the lawsuit of the plaintiffs and the defendant Daewoo Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., five minutes and three others are the plaintiffs. The remaining expenses are borne by the plaintiffs, and the expenses incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Daewoo Heavy Industries Co., Ltd, and the two infrastructure Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

4. The provisions of Article 2-2 (b) may be provisionally executed.

The defendants were jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff 1,098,167,295 won, 60,730,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 137,38,500 won, 205,500 won to the plaintiff 4, 73,223,750 won to the plaintiff 5, 16,492,90 won to the plaintiff 6, 33,872,511 won to the plaintiff 7, and 33,872,51 won to the plaintiff 1, and the above amount to the plaintiff 2 from the 15th day of March 10, 199 to the 3th day of December 15, 199 to the above amount to the plaintiff 3, 200 to the 3th day of August 19, 20 to the above amount to the plaintiff 4, 200 to the 3th day of August 19, 201 to the above amount to the plaintiff 30.

2. Claim as to the trustee in bankruptcy of the Bankrupt Treatment Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant in bankruptcy”), which is the taking-off of the lawsuit of the Defendant Treatment Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Treatment Heavy Industries”)

For the main and ancillary bankruptcy industry, Plaintiff 1, 377, 974, 304 won, Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 76,910,801 won, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 253, 778,671 won, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 88,959 won, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 7, Plaintiff 21,08,652 won, and Plaintiff 7, Plaintiff 42,47,360 won each of the bankruptcy claims is finalized (the plaintiffs revised the claim in the first instance according to the bankruptcy).

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows. The defendants jointly and severally do so to plaintiffs 1,098,167,295 won, 60,730,00 won to plaintiffs 2, 137,38,500 won to plaintiffs 3, 183,289,78 won to plaintiffs 4, 73,750 won to plaintiffs 5, 16,492,90 won to plaintiffs 6, 33,872,511 won to plaintiffs 7, and the above amount of plaintiff 1 to 33,872,51 won to the above amount from March 10, 200 to 30,000 to 9, 209 to 30,000 per annum to 30,000 to 9,000 to 30,000 won per annum to 30,000 to 29,000 won per annum to 30,299.

2. The purport of the appeal by the defendant trustee in bankruptcy, Kim Woo, and the defendant 5 and 6

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant bankruptcy trustee, Kim Jong-woo, Defendant 5 and 6 shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

(a) Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this part of the court's explanation is as follows: (a) fact-finding under Section 11, Section 2 of the first instance court's decision; and (b) Section 4 of the first instance court's decision's decision's decision's decision's attached Form 3, Section 6, and Section 4 of the first instance court's decision's decision's attached Form 6, and Section 1, Section 1 of the first instance court's decision's reasoning (including attached Form) is the same in addition to adding some details of transactions (specific details are the same as the corresponding part of the above attached Form) in the calculation of damages by plaintiffs 6, 7 among attached Form 3.

B. Additional parts

The Daewoo Heavy Industries was declared bankrupt on April 15, 2005 by the Incheon District Court No. 2005Hahap12, and was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of the Daewoo Heavy Industries on the same day. Accordingly, on May 20, 2005, the plaintiffs reported each of the amounts stated in paragraph 2 of the claim in the above bankruptcy procedure (i.e., the sum of the amounts stated in paragraph 1 of this claim and the interest accrued from April 14, 2005, which was the first day of each of the above amounts, until April 14, 2005, which was the first day of each of the above amounts. The trustee in bankruptcy filed a bankruptcy report on April 14, 2005. The trustee in bankruptcy denied all of the above claims of the plaintiffs on the date of claim inspection held on June 14, 2005, and taken over the lawsuit of this case by the Daewoo Heavy Industries.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Determination as to the main defense against the plaintiffs 4 and 5 by the defendant bankruptcy trustee

Although the defendant bankruptcy trustee asserts that the above plaintiffs 4 and 5 should be dismissed, the above plaintiffs' lawsuits should be dismissed. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above plaintiffs are not dead, the above assertion by the defendant bankruptcy trustee is without merit (the defendant two infrastructure co-owners and the defendant 6 withdrawn the plaintiff's main defense on April 22, 2005).

B. Determination as to the main defense against the plaintiffs' primary claims among the defendant Treatment Shipbuilding Sea, the defendant 5, and the Kim Jong-woo

(1) Summary of this defense

The facts are as follows: (a) around October 1998, when the corporate structural improvement work for the Treatment Group was commenced against the Treatment Group or around July 1999, the window dressing accounting of the Treatment Heavy Industries was widely known; (b) around that time, the plaintiffs should have known that the business report of the 35th and 36th of the Treatment Heavy Industries was false; (c) since the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the above Defendants only on October 24, 2000 for which the exclusion period of one year elapsed from the lawsuit against the above Defendants, the plaintiffs asserted that the main claim of this case, which is liable for damages under the Securities and Exchange Act, should be dismissed.

【Judgment on the legitimacy of the filing of the lawsuit

According to Articles 186-5 and 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act, in a case where any purchaser of securities suffers damage due to a false entry or indication or omission of important matters in the business report, the corporation and its director, etc. who is the person who submitted the business report concerned shall be liable for such damages. According to Articles 186-5 and 16 of the said Act, the above liability for damages shall be extinguished if the claimant fails to exercise his right to claim within one year from the date on which he knew of such fact or within three years from the date on which the business report became effective. Here, the term “the date on which he knows the relevant fact” means the time when the claimant actually knows the omission or false entry in the business report. If the general public can be seen as having known the fact that there was an omission or false entry in the business report, it is reasonable to view that the claimant, barring any special circumstance, had actually recognized such fact before the expiration of 90 minutes of the business report (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da30402, Dec. 21, 1993).

【Judgment on the lawfulness of expansion of the claim

However, since the right to claim compensation for damages under Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act occurs individually by the shares acquired through the publication of a false business report, it shall be individually examined according to the time of the claim for damages concerning the relevant shares. Accordingly, the claim for damages arising from the purchase of shares, such as the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7's attached Form 3, which was added through the expansion, etc. of the claim for damages, shall be deemed unlawful since the claim for damages arising from the purchase of shares was filed after the lapse of October 26, 200, the exclusion period

· Sub-determination

Therefore, since the above defendants' main safety defense is justified within the above recognition scope, the part of the claim for damages under the Securities and Exchange Act, which is sought against the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7's attached Form 3 as to each purchase in the "purchase" as to each purchase in the annexed Form 3 of the plaintiff 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, shall be dismissed as being unlawful, on the premise that the purchase of shares in the annexed Form 3 against the defendant's bankruptcy trustee has a claim for confirmation of bankruptcy claim under the Securities and Exchange Act on the premise that the damage claim under the above part exists due to the purchase of shares in the unlawful claim. Thus, the above part of the claim for damages shall be dismissed as being unlawful.

C. Determination as to the defense of the main safety of the Defendant Treatment Shipbuilding’s sea

Since the defendant Daewoo Shipbuilding's sea was subject to a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders required by the Commercial Act and the creditor protection procedure required when acquiring assets from the Daewoo Heavy Industries, and was to bear only the obligation related to the assets invested in it, the plaintiffs' claim that the compensation liability for damages is not borne by the defendant Daewoo Shipbuilding's sea, and it is not a party's qualification. However, the above reasons are merely matters to be determined as the existence of the claim in this case. Thus, the above argument at the

3. Determination as to the claims against the defendant trustee in bankruptcy, Kim Jong-soo, and the defendant 5 and 6

A. Judgment on the main claim

(i)the occurrence of liability for damages

㈎ 대우중공업, 피고 김우중, 피고 5, 6의 손해배상책임

According to the facts cited by a member of the court of first instance, it can be acknowledged that there was a false entry or indication in the business report of the company at the 35th and 36th business report of the company in question, so the company in question as a person who submitted the above business report, and Defendant Kim Jong-soo, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 as a director of the company in the treatment Heavy Industries at the time of submitting the above business report, they are liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiffs who acquired stocks in the open market after the documents were disclosed under Articles 186-5 and 14(1)

㈏ 피고들의 주장에 관한 판단

1) Determination as to the assertion of Defendant Kim Jong-woo

Defendant Kim Yong-soo alleged that the company's window dressing accounting was conducted as a practice at the time, and thus, the company's responsibility should not be recognized. However, the above argument alone does not constitute a justifiable ground for exempting the above defendant from liability for damages. Thus, the above argument by the above defendant is without merit.

2) Determination as to Defendant 5’s assertion

Defendant 5, although he was in office as the representative director of the Daewoo Heavy Industries, he did not have a position to grasp the financial situation because he had a separate director in charge of finance and managed all the financial documents, etc. Even if he was aware of this, he was merely a representative director who is employed and is therefore unable to perform a corrective act against the will of the defendant Kim Heavy, and thus there is no possibility of expectation. However, there is no evidence to prove that there is no negligence on the part of the defendant 5 with respect to the preparation of the business report at the 35th and 36th business report, and there is no possibility of expectation that the defendant 5 could not expect a corrective act against the intention of the defendant 5 to be exempted from the above liability for damages. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant 5 is without merit.

3) Determination as to the assertion by Defendant trustee in bankruptcy, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6

Defendant bankruptcy trustee, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 asserted that the claim for damages under Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act is limited to those who acquire the securities in the market of public offering or sale, and that those who acquire the securities in the market of distribution are not recognized. The Plaintiffs are not those who acquire the stocks in the market of public offering or sale.

In order to ensure fairness in the transaction of securities and protect investors, the Securities and Exchange Act has a system that requires an issuer of securities to promptly and accurately disclose the contents of securities and the contents of the company necessary for investors' judgment on investment, such as assets and management status of the issuing company, and as a part of such disclosure system, Article 186-2 (1) of the same Act provides that “stock-listed corporations, Association-registered corporations, and other corporations prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall submit business reports to the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Stock Exchange or the Association within 90 days after the end of each business year.” Article 186-5 of the same Act provides that Articles 14 through 16 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to liability for damages caused by false entry, etc. in a statement of securities market, such as false entry in the business report, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the person who acquired the securities at the issuing market. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant bankruptcy trustee, Defendant 5 and 6 that only

4) Determination as to the defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that since around October 1998, since the fact that the share price had been widely known and the publication of the fact of window dressing accounting does not affect the share price of the Daewoo Heavy Industries, the plaintiffs' damages should be deemed not to have been caused by window dressing accounting but by social, market and economic factors and the plaintiffs' market manipulation, etc., even before the fact of window dressing accounting of the Daewoo Heavy Industries was announced, the fact of window dressing accounting had already been known to investors in the market.

In a case where a purchaser of stocks claims compensation for damages caused by false statements in a business report against a stock-listed corporation, etc. based on the provisions of Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act applied mutatis mutandis by Article 186-5 of the same Act, the purchaser of stocks does not need to prove the existence of causation between false statements in a business report and the occurrence of damages pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act, and to exempt the stock-listed corporation from liability (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da38521, Oct. 11, 2002).

In addition, the proof of "non-existence of a causal relationship between damage" under Article 15 (2) of the Securities and Exchange Act can be used as a method of proving that an illegal act, such as the pertinent false disclosure, directly at issue, did not have any influence on the occurrence of damage, or that the damage occurred in whole or in part by any other factor than the pertinent fraudulent disclosure, etc. at issue. In this case, it is not clear that the disclosure of false disclosure, etc. at issue, when it is assumed that an illegal act was not publicly announced based on the data prior to the disclosure of the market, the estimated return of profit and normal share price which can be predicted, and that the announcement of the illegal act was based on the presumption of excess return, which is the difference between the expected return of profit and the actual return of profit observed in the market, can be used as a method of investigating whether the stock price was a statistically significant impact on the stock price. However, in light of the legislative intent of the presumption provision as above, for example, the price of the stock after purchase of the false disclosure, etc., decreased after the price decline, and it can not be presumed that the above 2060.

According to the result of the appraisal of evidence Nos. 20-1, 2 (the same as evidence No. 44), 3, 3, 22-2, 22-4 and 3-22-2, and the fact inquiry about the member's implications, it can be acknowledged that the press report of Oct. 26, 199 on the fact of the window dressing accounting of treatment group as well as treatment-based industry using the above research method, and treatment-based industry as well as treatment-based industry, treatment-based company, company, company, and company's window dressing accounting of treatment company, did not have a statistical meaning on the share price of treatment-based industry, etc. However, the research method of analyzing the window dressing accounting's flow by considering the date of publication of the window dressing accounting as the date of the case is based on logical premise that the fact was not known at all to the market before the date of publication and did not affect the share price. Thus, if it is sufficiently difficult to reflect the stock price in the securities market prior to the date of publication of the window accounting.

(6) The Financial Services Commission’s 9 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.6 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.7 billion won and 9.6 billion won and 97 billion won and 9.6 billion won and 9.3 billion won and 977 billion won and 9.6 billion won and 977 billion won and 9.

Therefore, the appraisal report using the research method of this case alone cannot be deemed to have proved that there is no causal relationship between the window dressing accounting of the treatment Heavy industry and the Plaintiff’s total damages incurred by the Plaintiff in the business report. Therefore, the above Defendants’ causal relationship does not exist. As examined later, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion that there is no causal relationship is without merit except for the part of damages with no causal relationship as examined later.

Dor Scope of Liability for Damage

㈎ 인과관계 있는 주식의 취득기간

(i) Stocks acquired between March 31, 1998 and October 25, 1999.

The plaintiffs seek compensation for damages caused by the acquisition of stocks by reliance on the business report which was falsely entered and announced to the Korea Stock Exchange in accordance with Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act. The 35 business report was submitted to the Korea Stock Exchange on March 31, 1998 and the 36 business report was submitted to the Korea Stock Exchange and was publicly announced on March 31, 199, and the 36 business report was widely known to the general public on October 26, 199, the fact that the results of the inspection of the Daewoo Heavy Industries were about November 4, 1999, which was officially announced on November 14, 1999. Since an ordinary investor who invests in stocks, it should be deemed that the Plaintiffs traded the stocks of the company, which was naturally formed on the basis that the financial statements that indicate the most well-known financial status of the company in question were duly prepared and publicly announced and the stock price was formed on the basis that it was formed (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da19963, Apr. 19, 1997).

2) Stocks acquired by Plaintiff 1 as of October 27, 1999

According to the facts cited in the judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 3), it is recognized that Plaintiff 1 purchased 61,490 shares from October 25, 199, which was determined as the acquisition period of shares with the above causation, and after October 27, 1999. Meanwhile, considering the whole purport of the pleading in the statement No. 1-2, the statement of October 27, 1999 should be deemed as follows: (a) the number of shares purchased on October 25, 199, including the three transaction days of purchase order; (b) the number of shares purchased on October 27, 199, which was settled on October 27, 199; and (c) the number of shares purchased on October 27, 199 and entered as “3 days of purchase” as “the number of shares purchased on October 27, 199; and (d) each of the above shares purchased on September 19, 199.

3) Determination on the plaintiffs' assertion on the initial date of causation

The plaintiffs asserted that the shares acquired between March 1, 1998 and March 30, 1998 should also be included in the causal shares, since the business report of the 35th business year was announced in the Joseon Dynasty on or before March 1, 1998, but the liabilities under Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act may only arise when the false business report, etc. was submitted to the Korea Stock Exchange, etc. (Articles 186-2, 186-5, 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act) and the business report, etc. were announced in the press prior to the submission to the Korea Stock Exchange, etc., it is difficult to view that Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act shall apply. The above assertion is without merit (i.e., acquisition of shares after March 1, 1998, as alleged by the plaintiffs, constitutes a causal share acquisition to which Article 14 of the Securities and Exchange Act applies. However, the conclusion does not affect the conclusion of this case between March 1, 1998 to March 30).

4) Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of the end of causation

The Defendants asserted to the effect that since around October 1998, since the treatment group had already undergone liquidity crisis and the aggravation of its financial status was widely spreading in the stock market, the financial statements of the treatment Heavy Industries did not function as the criteria for judgment on investment in the financial statements of the treatment Heavy Industries, and that since November 1998, damage caused by the Plaintiffs’ acquisition of shares after the acquisition of the shares is not a causal relationship with the false entry in the business report.

However, on July 22, 1998, the Treatment Group suffered liquidity crisis after IMF, and on October 28, 1998, the Financial Supervisory Commission imposed restrictions on the issuance limit of the CP and restrictions on the holding of corporate bonds against financial institutions. On October 29, 1998, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance limited the English report on the securities "the Treatment Group has an emergency level to the Treatment Group" to its customers. On December 19, 1998, the members of the Treatment Group's major credit-based financial institutions concluded an agreement for the sound management and improvement of financial structure of the Treatment Group, and it is difficult for the Credit Rating Group to recognize that the above facts were insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs were unable to use the shares of the Treatment Group as material for the improvement of liquidity industry, including BB(-B)'s corporate bonds, and the Financial Supervisory Commission did not know that the above facts were insufficient to the Treatment Group's first half of the company's corporate bonds acquisition and treatment Group's shares.

㈏ 손해액의 산정방법

1) Determination as to whether a specific need for stock exists

The defendant bankruptcy trustee and the defendant 5 asserted that the plaintiffs' claims are groundless, since the shares that the plaintiffs suffered loss due to the price decline in order to claim compensation for damages pursuant to Article 15 of the Securities and Exchange Act are specifically identified at any time. Since the plaintiffs do not specify "the securities concerned" at all, the plaintiffs' claims are therefore groundless.

However, under the current securities depository settlement system, if a specific securities are deposited at the Korea Securities Depository, it cannot be specified by mixing them with other securities of the same kind in the current moment. In the case of the sale and purchase of deposited securities, the seller or the purchaser cannot specify the securities which are the purpose of the sale and purchase. Only the type, issue, and quantity of securities are designated and traded, and there is a problem that a person who acquired the securities can not specify the securities he acquired.

However, since the price of shares formed through the purchase and demand of shares inside the stock market has a very unusual nature to be determined by very diverse factors, such as the supply and demand of the quantity of shares in the stock market and various external conditions outside the stock market, it is not easy to prove the causal relationship. Considering the fact that the amount of damages to be compensated for is not easy to prove the causal relationship because of the decline in the stock market caused by the false disclosure during the stock price fluctuation, the Securities and Exchange Act provides that “if the claimant disposes of the securities in question before the closing of argument or the closing of argument at the time of closing of argument in the acquisition of the securities concerned, the disposal price shall be deducted” (Articles 186-5 and 15(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that it is difficult for the claimant to prove that there is no causal relationship between the false entry in the business report and the damages caused by the decline in the stock market, and that it is difficult for the specific purport of Article 186-5(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act to individually claim for the protection of the securities concerned (Article 186-5(2).

2) Calculation method of damages of this case

In light of the above circumstances where it is difficult to specify the amount of damages of the plaintiffs in this case, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of damages by the method of deeming the plaintiffs first to dispose of the shares they acquired in advance as the method corresponding to the purpose of calculating the amount of damages under the Securities and Exchange Act. Accordingly, the amount of

However, according to the fact-finding results with respect to Plaintiff 1, the first instance court's mobilization securities company shall determine the amount of stocks sold on April 19, 199; November 6, 199; and part of stocks sold on credit on November 5, 199; the stocks subject to the sale are as indicated in the loss calculation statement by Plaintiff 4. The fact-finding of stocks purchased on August 18, 199, as indicated in the loss calculation statement by Plaintiff 4. The fact-finding of stocks purchased on August 19, 199; August 19, 199; and August 19, 199; and August 20, 199. Thus, it shall be calculated in consideration of the above fact-finding results only for the credit sale of stocks subject to sale which can be specified by the acquisition date as above; since the credit purchase of stocks at a different unit price was made on January 19, 199; and it is difficult to determine the amount of stocks purchased on January 19, 1999.

㈐ 인과관계가 부존재하는 손해액

In a case where the fact that the contents of the financial statements stated in the business report are falsified widely known in the stock market, and the share price change after the formation date of normal share price is formed, there is no causation with the false disclosure, barring any special circumstances. Thus, in a case where it is confirmed that the pertinent shares were sold after the formation date of normal share price or continued to be held until the closing date of oral argument, the difference between the above normal share price and the actual disposal price (or the market price at the closing date of oral argument) among the damages under Article 15(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act shall be deemed to have been proved by the absence of causation under Article 15(2) of the Securities and Exchange Act. In this case, the amount of damages shall be the amount calculated by deducting the share price on the date of formation of the above normal share price from the purchase price (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16758, 16765, Oct. 25, 2007).

In light of the results of appraisal of 10 billion won and 20-2 of No. 32 C. 10 (the same shall apply to No. 44) as to this case, experts who reviewed whether the window dressing accounting of treatment Heavy Industries had influenced the stock price flow were 10.0 billion won and 199.0 billion won were 19.0 billion won and 199.0 billion won were 10 billion won and 199.0 billion won were 10 billion won and 199.0 billion won were 9 billion won and 19.0 billion won were 19 billion won and 19.0 billion won were 9 billion won and 19.0 billion won were 19 billion won and 19.0 billion won were 19 billion won and 2.0 billion won were 9 billion won and 19.0 billion won were 19 billion won and 9.0 billion won were 19 billion won and 19.0 billion won were 19.0 billion won and 196 billion won were 19.

㈑ 손해액의 산정

As seen earlier, if the plaintiffs calculated the specific amount of damages for each plaintiff with respect to their shares purchased from March 31, 1998 to October 25, 1999, the difference between the purchase price and the sale price in the case of the portion disposed of before November 9, 1999, among the shares purchased from March 31, 199 and October 25, 199, the difference between the purchase price and the sale price shall be the amount. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16584, Nov. 9, 199; Presidential Decree No. 16583, Nov. 9, 199; Presidential Decree No. 16585, Nov. 9, 199; Presidential Decree No. 16584, Nov. 9, 199; Presidential Decree No. 16580, Nov. 19, 200>

㈒ 책임의 제한

Article 15 of the Securities and Exchange Act provides for the presumption of the amount of damages to be compensated as seen earlier and the burden of proof of causation to the person liable for compensation. However, even in a damages claim lawsuit to which this provision applies, there is no difference in the application of the basic ideology of the Damage Compensation Act, such as fair apportionment of damages, so it is still possible to limit liability based on the equitable principle on the ground that there is negligence that the victim has contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages. In particular, considering that there is extremely diverse and multiple factors at the same time, it is extremely difficult to estimate which specific factors have any influence at any time, other than illegal acts such as false disclosure, etc., it may be extremely difficult to prove the daily amount of damages arising from such other circumstances. In such a case, it is reasonable to see that the damages compensation can be limited by taking into account such circumstances in light of the ideology of the damage compensation system as fair apportionment of damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da166757, Jul. 16, 2006).

With respect to this case, it is difficult to readily conclude that Korean companies are accurately disclosing the financial status of the juristic person because it is prepared based on data provided by the juristic person in question. Moreover, since Korean companies are often engaged in the window dressing accounting for the purpose of getting loans from financial institutions, evading taxes, or raising funds for non-financial purposes, the investors' judgment on investment should include not only the business report but also various information that inform the financial conditions, business activities, futureity, etc. of the company. In light of the ideology of the damage compensation system, it is reasonable to limit the defendants' liability to 60% of the losses suffered by the plaintiffs in light of the principle of the damage compensation system, even though the plaintiffs are known to the general public that the financial status of the Daewoo Heavy Industries is not lost differently from the business report, due to the creditor financial institutions, credit rating companies, and the Financial Supervisory Commission's various measures before and after acquiring the shares.

【Finality

Therefore, taking into account the limitation of liability as above in the damages amount of the plaintiffs, the principal amount of damage claim against the plaintiffs Daewoo Heavy Industries, Defendant Kim Jong- Co., Ltd, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 is the amount indicated in the “amount of damages and the amount of damages” in the “amount of sight” in attached Form 1. On the other hand, when calculating the amount of general bankruptcy claim by the day the bankruptcy was declared against the defendant bankruptcy based on the principal amount of damage claim above, the amount indicated in the “total” in the “amount of

Therefore, Defendant Kim U-woo, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 jointly and severally have a duty to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the date of acquisition of the shares that incurred with respect to each of the above amounts as stated in [Attachment 1]’s damages and each of the above amounts as of the date after the date of acquisition of the shares that incurred losses to each of the Plaintiff as stated in the “Plaintiff” list of the amount of damages and the cited amount, as claimed by the Plaintiffs, until November 6, 2008, which is the date of adjudication of the court of first instance, to the date of full payment, that the said Defendants dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs have a general bankruptcy claim in the

B. Determination on the conjunctive claim

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the above Defendants are not liable under the Securities and Exchange Act against the Defendants, one of the most important factors that form a share price. An audit report prepared through an audit of the financial statements of the subject company revealing the accurate financial status of the subject company is provided to ordinary investors, published, and has a significant influence on the formation of the share price. Thus, the Plaintiffs who trusted and invested false financial statements and audit reports listed in the business report are liable for damages based on Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act against the illegal acts of the representative director or the illegal acts of employees, and the Daewoo Heavy Industries is liable for damages based on Article 750 and 760 of the Civil Act against the third party when the directors neglected their duties due to bad faith or gross negligence.

Shed Judgment

In a case where the primary claim and the conjunctive claim are compatible with each other, if there is a reasonable need for the parties to make a claim by attaching the order of the trial. In such a case, where the primary claim is not wholly accepted, the parties may bring a lawsuit by combining the indivisible claim with the purport that they will make a judgment on the conjunctive claim within the scope of the amount not accepted in the primary claim. Thus, in a case where the primary claim is partially accepted, the issue of whether to hear the conjunctive claim depends on the interpretation of the parties' intent in the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23598 delivered on October 25, 2002). Thus, in this case, where the primary claim is not fully accepted, the plaintiffs consider the conjunctive claim within the scope of the amount not accepted in the primary claim and consider the conjunctive claim within the scope of the amount not accepted in the primary claim. Thus, as seen above, the plaintiffs shall be dismissed as a result of calculating the amount of damages in the primary claim and the details of the conjunctive claim in accordance with the attached Form 3.

㈎ 1999. 10. 25.까지 매수한 주식 부분에 관한 판단

First, with respect to the part of the shares purchased by the Plaintiffs until October 25, 199, it can be recognized that the shares acquired within the above period are due to the public disclosure of false business report.

However, unlike the main claim of this case, unlike the claim of damages under the Securities and Exchange Act, which is a person who is liable for the non-existence of a causal relationship between the false business report and the damage of the plaintiffs, the claimant must prove all the facts such as the causal relationship between the illegal act such as false entry, and the damage. In this case, the plaintiffs' proof of the causal relationship between the false business report required in the Commercial Act or the damages claim under the Commercial Act and the damages claim under the Commercial Act is insufficient. Thus, the above part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, without examining further.

㈏ 1999. 10. 26. 이후 매수한 주식 부분에 관한 판단

Next, as seen earlier, the plaintiffs' health account for the part of their shares purchased after October 26, 199, and information on the overall window dressing accounting of the Treatment Heavy Industries including the Treatment Heavy Industries had already been provided to the general public including the plaintiffs, as seen earlier. Thus, the shares acquired thereafter are merely acquired based on independent judgment that the shares of the Treatment Heavy Industries were judged lower than justifiable value even if the financial statements of the Treatment Heavy Industries were not acquired with trust and trust of the financial statements of the Treatment Heavy Industries. Thus, it is difficult to recognize a causal relationship between the acquisition of shares after October 26, 199 and the window dressing accounting of the Treatment Heavy Industries. Thus, the above part of the plaintiffs' claim is without reason to examine the causal relationship between the window dressing Heavy Industries and the damages.

【Finality

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiffs' preliminary claims against the plaintiffs in bankruptcy, defendant Kim Jong-soo, defendant 5, and 6.

4. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Treatment Shipbuilding, the ocean, and the two infrastructure co-operation

(a) recognised facts;

(1) After the IMF incident, the company's corporate improvement work was commenced on August 26, 1999. On January 29, 2000, the Korea Development Bank, Treatment Heavy Industries, Co., Ltd., Ltd. and the Korea Development Bank, Defendant Kim Woo, and the Korea Development Bank, the Korea Development Bank, and the Korea Development Bank, the Korea Development Bank, and the Korea Development Bank, Co., Ltd., Defendant Kim Woo, did not dispose of debts, and did not dispose of the treatment Heavy Industries which could not be repaid through bankruptcy procedures, and entered into a "agreement for the corporate improvement work" with the aim of enabling the company's rehabilitation by building the financial structure and management control structure of the Treatment Heavy Industries through the corporate improvement work, with the aim of separating the shipbuilding business sector and the general machinery sector operated by the Treatment Heavy Industries from the existing company to the separate company by the method of human division, each of its shareholders becomes the shareholders of the newly incorporated company.

At the temporary general meeting of shareholders of the Daewoo Heavy Industries held on June 27, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “temporary general meeting of shareholders of this case”) in accordance with the Luxembourg’s agreement, a special resolution of the division plan (Article 1(b)(1); hereinafter referred to as the “instant division plan”) with the following contents as follows. The division plan of this case, other than the evidence No. 5, was submitted in addition to the evidence No. B(1). However, according to the statement No. 2-B, the division plan No. 5 was approved by the board of directors on June 26, 200, which is the transfer of the resolution of the temporary general meeting of shareholders of this case, the division plan No. 5 was amended by the amendment of some phrases to the division plan of No. B or 1.

[Article 1] Objectives

(1) As the liabilities owed to creditor financial institutions, etc. cannot be repaid in accordance with the terms of the initial agreement due to insolvency of the financial structure of the treatment Heavy Industries, the corporate restructuring agreement and the normalization plan of the creditor financial institutions council shall be separated from the maritime division of shipbuilding and the comprehensive machinery division into separate companies in accordance with the corporate restructuring agreement and the normalization plan of the creditor financial institutions council, and it shall ensure prompt normalization of the business division by having the divided company maintain and manage the assets which have no direct relationship with the business, such as the investment assets, sales bonds

(2) The creditors, stockholders, and employees shall reasonably share losses, and further promote common interests by building the financial structure and management governance of a newly incorporated company for the prompt normalization of the shipbuilding, ocean division and the comprehensive machinery division through corporate improvement work of the Daewoo Heavy Industries.

[Article 3] Method of Division

(1) A divided company shall become a shareholder of the newly incorporated company, and a divided company shall continue to exist, while the newly incorporated company shall be a listed corporation.

(2) The base date of division shall be August 31, 199: Provided, That in cases of the division of capital, only the calculation of the number and number of shares shall be based on the base date of division, and the stocks owned by each shareholder shall be divided based on the date preceding the date of the registration of the division.

(3) The assets, liabilities, and capital of a newly incorporated company shall be determined in such a way as to determine the amount of assets and capital to be transferred by contribution first and then the amount of liabilities to be succeeded or acquired by the newly incorporated company (hereinafter referred to as "Succession").

(4) A company shall be incorporated by division upon a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders pursuant to Article 530-9 (2) of the Commercial Act, and the company to be incorporated (including any liability) shall only bear obligations (including any liability) with respect to its invested assets, unless otherwise specified in the plan for division.

(5) "Liabilities with respect to property invested" referred to in paragraph (4) means succeeding to a public order determined according to the close degree of relevance, and any obligation for which it is difficult to objectively recognize the close degree of relevance or simultaneously related thereto shall be succeeded in proportion to each obligee and each claim amount, in consideration of the method for determining the scale of debts referred to in paragraph (3) and the ability to succeed to debts according to the order referred to in Article 10,

(6) Notwithstanding the date of division referred to in paragraph (2), the term "debts with respect to the invested property" in the preceding paragraph shall be deemed succeeded based on the amount of obligation as of August 25, 199, and the obligations newly borrowed or repaid after August 25, 199 shall be deemed to have been performed by each company (division and newly incorporated company) after division. In such cases, the debts borrowed by each company after division shall be deemed to have been managed separately by each company or business division.

(7) Any debt that a newly incorporated company succeeds to shall be limited to such debt that is reflected in the balance sheet of the newly incorporated company and shall not be succeeded to any debt that is not directly related to the business of the newly incorporated company (referring to any debt specified in Article 10 (2) 1), which is not reflected in the balance sheet, except as otherwise expressly provided.

Article 9 (Value of Assets and Assets of Division to be Transferred to New Company)

(1) The details of a divided company shall be transferred to the shipbuilding company to the total amount of KRW 4,042,391 million, and the total amount of assets of the mechanical company to the mechanical company, respectively, and shall be as follows:

2. Investment securities 3. Investment securities excluding part of the outstanding amount receivable for domestic automobile business 4.1. Other factual corporations with property value, such as business, 5. Other 1. Business assets of the machinery business sector (excluding part of the related assets, such as sales bonds, etc. as to the attached assets, including the attached assets, automobile(s) and (e) treatment) 2. Investment securities for overseas local subsidiaries engaged in the machinery business;

[Article 10] (Matters concerning Obligations of New Company)

(1) A shipbuilding company and a mechanical company shall succeed, respectively, to the assets and liabilities equivalent to the amount obtained by subtracting the capital and reserve of a newly incorporated company under Article 8 from the value of the assets and its assets that will be transferred to a newly incorporated company under Article 9 as of the base date of division. The funds (including loans, D/A, L/C) raised through new loans, bonds sale (including discounts) after August 26, 199 shall be succeeded in proportion to the amount used by the shipbuilding business sector and the mechanical business sector, the amount used by the mechanical business sector and the mechanical business sector, and each creditor shall be divided and managed by each sector (or each company).

(2) The shipbuilding company and the mechanical company shall succeed to the debts under the preceding paragraph in the following order:

1. A shipbuilding company and a machinery company shall succeed to the following commercial transactions and pure business property-related obligations for the continuance of an enterprise belonging to their respective assets:

(a) Credit purchase amount, accounts payable, payment bills (Provided, That this shall not include liabilities related to (main) treatment, purchase obligations, etc. for treated motor vehicles);

(b)import L/C;

(c) Vessel manufacturing financing of the Export-Import Bank;

(d) Reserves for severance benefits and allowances for repairing defects;

(e) Liability for indemnity on advance payment and guarantee for refund of advance payment;

(f) Obligation to compensate for the performance guarantee; and

(g) Other obligations that can be presented equally;

2. A shipbuilding company and a mechanical company shall succeed to any obligation not falling under the preceding subparagraph, which is a collateral within the extent of substantial collateral value of assets offered as security among assets belonging to each company.

5. A shipbuilding company and a mechanical company shall succeed in proportion to the amount obtained by subtracting the amount of succeeded debts under subparagraphs 1 through 4 from the amount equivalent to the amount of debts under paragraph (1) among unsecured debts of a divided company (excluding a claim for performance of guaranteed debts which are not caused by acts of borrowing a company) by each obligee

(3) In calculating unsecured debts to be succeeded by a shipbuilding company and machinery company in paragraph (2), it shall be calculated by including the discount of advanced bills and D/A, which are debts in distress not reflected in the balance sheet, but each creditor shall be designated to succeed in lieu of debts in other subjects equivalent to the same amount.

(5) Any obligation subject to succession under paragraphs (1) through (4) may be changed, and where division is impossible or extremely difficult due to legal or factual difficulties, such as corporate bonds, CPs, and other obligations incorporated into securities, and obligations for indemnity with respect thereto, such obligations shall be placed as the obligations of the divided company, and such obligations may be replaced by succession of the liability for payment or indemnity.

Secondly, the balance sheet of the newly incorporated company attached to the instant division plan does not reflect the obligation to compensate the plaintiffs of the Daewoo Heavy Industries.

Applicant Treatment Heavy Industries announced on June 28, 200 for the submission by creditors (the submission period: June 28, 2000; July 28, 2000); and for the submission of old share certificates (the submission period: June 29, 200; July 31, 200); on October 23, 200, the registration of division was completed for the defendant Treatment Heavy Industries (the Mutual Treatment Shipbuilding Industry Co., Ltd. at the time of division) and the defendant Two Industrial Infrastructure Co., Ltd. (the integrated equipment Co., Ltd. at the time of division).

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 5, and Eul's Evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including additional numbers)

B. Judgment on the main claim

The plaintiffs are primarily responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 186-5 and Article 14(1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, as seen earlier, since the defendant Treatment Shipbuilding and the two infrastructure Co., Ltd are a newly incorporated company divided from the Treatment Heavy Industries, they are responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for the above damages for the following reasons, it shall be examined in accordance with the specific arguments.

(1) Determination as to the assertion that the property was succeeded to as “debted property”

The plaintiffs asserted that since the liability for damages against the plaintiffs in the Treatment Heavy Industries due to false statements in the business report (hereinafter "liability for damages in this case") falls under the "liability concerning the property invested" in the defendant Treatment Heavy Industries and the two Industrial Infrastructure Coin, the above defendants succeeded to it from the Treatment Heavy Industries pursuant to Article 3 (4) of the division plan in this case.

However, according to Articles 3(3) and 9 of the Division Plan of this case, the term "debt related to the invested property" means the property invested by the division company in the newly incorporated company, that is, the liabilities related to the business assets, etc. of the division company or the machinery division that is transferred to the newly incorporated company pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Division Plan of this case. It is difficult to view the damages liability of this case as pertaining to the business assets, etc. that are transferred to the newly incorporated company as above. Rather, the damages liability of this case is the overseas debt not reflected in the balance sheet of the newly incorporated company and the liabilities directly related to the business, as seen above, as seen in Article 3(7) of the Division Plan of this case, as seen in Article 3(1) of the Division Plan of this case. Unless otherwise specified, the above claims by the plaintiffs are without merit.

D. Determination as to the assertion that he/she succeeded equally as “a debt for which it is difficult to recognize the close relevance.”

The plaintiffs asserts that if the damages liability of this case does not correspond to the "debt with respect to the invested property", the above Defendants shall be deemed to have succeeded equally to the damages liability of this case, as the "property invested pursuant to Article 3 (5) of the Division Plan and the objectively "a debt with respect to which the relationship is not recognized".

On the other hand, Article 3 (5) of the Division Plan of this case does not provide for the new company to succeed to any obligation, but provides for the principle that the new company shall decide on the "order" of succession to the "debt with respect to the property invested" to succeed to. Article 10 (2) of the Division Plan of this case provides for the "order of Priority" to succeed to the same as subparagraphs 1 through 5 by embodying the above principles. Thus, the "debt with close recognition of the relationship" under Article 3 (5) of the Division Plan of this case is premised on the fact that the new company succeeds to the "debt with respect to the property invested". Thus, it cannot be viewed as "debt with respect to the property invested" as mentioned above. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the "debt with close recognition of the relationship" of this case does not need to be "debt with respect to the property invested", and there is no reason to establish the "debt with respect to the newly incorporated company's ability to succeed to the debt of this case after the establishment of this case."

【Judgment as to the assertion that he succeeded to the obligation directly related to the business”

The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants succeeded to the instant damages liability as “a debt directly related to business”.

In light of the foregoing (i.e., the above (i., the above). The "debt directly related to the business" under Article 10 (2) 1 of the division plan of this case is to specify the "debt with respect to the invested property", and the damage liability of this case cannot be viewed as the "debt with respect to the invested property" under Article 10 (2) 1 of the division plan of this case, and even if the "debt with direct relation to the business" is not included in the "debt with respect to the invested property" under Article 10 (2) 1 of the division plan of this case, it is separate from the "debt with direct relation to the business". In light of the contents of the above provisions listed as the "debt with direct relation to the business", it is difficult to view the damage liability of this case as the "debt with direct relation to the business", and therefore, the above assertion

m. Judgment on the assertion that it is impossible to divide due to its nature

The plaintiffs asserted that the damages liability of this case is a debt due to an illegal act regarding the overall evaluation of the Daewoo Heavy Industries, that is, a personal debt of the Daewoo Heavy Industries, and cannot be divided due to its nature. Thus, the above defendants, a new company, are jointly and severally liable with the Treatment Heavy Industries for the damages liability of this case, and claim that Article 10 (5) of the division plan of this case is also scheduled for the existence of an undivided debt due to its nature.

In light of the above circumstances of the plaintiffs' assertion, it is difficult to see that the damages liability of this case cannot be divided by nature, and even if the damages liability of this case is not divided by nature, in such a case, the above defendants cannot be deemed to bear the damages liability of this case pursuant to Article 10 (5) of the division plan of this case, which provides that the damages liability of this case shall be divided by nature. Thus, the above defendants' assertion cannot be deemed to be one mother or without merit.

(v)decision on abuse of corporate personality and good faith argument;

The plaintiffs newly established the company by dividing the company for the purpose of evading the obligation, and the division of the company for this purpose is null and void as it constitutes abuse of legal personality, and the above defendants' rejection of liability for damages caused by false statements in the business report of the Daewoo Heavy Industries is not allowed under the good faith principle for the same reason.

In light of the developments leading up to the division of the treatment Heavy Industries as revealed in the above facts, since the division of the treatment Heavy Industries is conducted for the prompt normalization of the treatment Heavy Industries through consultation with the Council of Creditor Council, etc., it cannot be deemed that there was an objective of evading the above division's debt. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiffs is without merit, even if it is further examined.

⑹ 채권자보호절차 불이행에 관한 주장에 관한 판단

㈎ 원고들의 주장

① Around February 200, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the relevant directors promoting the division of this case, and filed an application for a provisional disposition of suspending the validity of the provisional shareholders’ meeting of this case. Since treatment Heavy Industries agreed with the minority shareholders around May 22, 2000 on the share allocation ratio of the divided company, treatment Heavy Industries was to be divided of this case, it would have known that the Plaintiffs were their creditors (the claim of minority shareholders), and ② Treatment Heavy Industries was aware of the fact that it was liable to compensate for damages to the shareholders with the divided accounts. Further, it would have known that it was jointly and severally that the Plaintiffs were the shareholders and the creditors who suffered damages as above through the beneficial shareholders list prepared on May 30, 200 as the basic date for the provisional shareholders’ meeting of this case (the claim in the list). Accordingly, since treatment Heavy Industries did not individually have the effect of the aforementioned separate shareholders’ debt allocation ratio under Articles 530-9(2) and (4) and 527-5(1) of the Commercial Act, it did not have to be subject to the notice of this case’s separate from the Plaintiffs’ individual debt succession of this case.

㈏ 판단

The above argument by the plaintiffs is based on the premise that the plaintiffs were aware of the fact at the time of the division of this case, which is one's own creditor, so it should first be seen as examining this.

1) Judgment on the assertion of minority shareholders

However, according to the statement of evidence No. 58-1 to No. 4, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiffs were members of the above 481, and even if the plaintiffs were included in the above 481, according to the above facts of recognition, it is nothing more than the ratio of capital division and did not claim losses in stock transaction due to the window dressing accounting as the plaintiffs' claim, and thus, on February 29, 2000, they filed a complaint for the suspension of the provisional shareholders' meeting of this case against the crime of breach of trust, etc. and applied for the provisional disposition of suspension of the validity of the provisional shareholders' meeting of this case. It can be acknowledged that the Daewoo Heavy Industries agreed to raise the ratio of capital with the above 400, May 22, 2000. However, there is no evidence to support that the plaintiffs were members of the above 481.

2) Determination on the assertion of the beneficial shareholder registry

On the other hand, as seen in the above, it does not cause losses to all shareholders due to the window dressing accounting, and only some shareholders who have acquired shares during the trading period with the window dressing accounting shall concurrently hold the position of creditors. According to the evidence No. 50, the beneficial shareholder list can be acknowledged that only the management number, business registration number, common share and preferred share, the name and address of shareholders, and even if the plaintiffs were registered as shareholders on the beneficial shareholder list prepared for the provisional shareholders' meeting of this case, it cannot be deemed that the company of Daewoo Heavy could have known that the plaintiffs could concurrently hold the status of creditors other than the shareholders in the beneficial shareholder list, and even if the company was aware of the details of transactions of the plaintiffs, in light of the fact that the company was confirmed through the long-term individual lawsuit as seen in the above, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiffs were aware that the plaintiffs were creditors at the time of the division of this case. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

㈐ 소결

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the medical industry was aware of the fact that the plaintiffs were its own creditors at the time of the division of this case. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit without further review.

⑺ 주주의 부담이 가중되는 분할로서 주주의 동의가 필요하다는 주장에 관한 판단

The plaintiffs asserts that since the liquidation value of the treatment Heavy Industries is reduced due to the division of this case and the burden is increased to the shareholders of the treatment Heavy Industries, the consent of all the shareholders, including the plaintiffs, should be required pursuant to Article 530-3 (6) of the Commercial Act.

However, the Commercial Act provides that the consent of all shareholders of a company is necessary in cases where the burden of shareholders of a company is increased due to a division of a company (Article 530-3(6); hereinafter referred to as “instant provision”), and the following circumstances, i.e., where it is difficult to anticipate actual division of assets and liabilities, the imbalance between assets and liabilities of most of the companies is inevitably accompanied. ii) The Commercial Act provides that approval of a general meeting of shareholders relating to a division of a company is required to be made by a special resolution (Articles 530-3(2) and (1) of this case). In cases of a company’s division of a company, the above special resolution provides that a company bears an aggravated burden on shareholders of a company without voting rights (Articles 530-3(3) and 370(1) of this case), and that if any loss occurs to a company due to a division, it shall be interpreted that the company bears an aggravated burden on shareholders of a newly incorporated company (Article 530-3(2) of this case) of this case).

As to the instant case, solely on the grounds that the Plaintiffs’ liquidation value decrease, etc. in the treatment Heavy Industries as alleged by the Plaintiffs cannot be said to mean “where the burden of shareholders of the company is increased” as referred to in the instant provision, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

⑻ 소결

If so, the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case that they bear the liability for damages of this case as a new company that is divided from the defendant Treatment Shipbuilding Sea and the Tasan Heavy Industries is without merit.

B. Determination on the conjunctive claim

Under the premise that the plaintiffs had a damage claim based on Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Code against the representative director's illegal acts or the illegal acts of employees, the plaintiffs asserted that the above damage claim was succeeded to from the defendant Treatment Shipbuilding Sea, the 2000 Heavy Industries, or that the damages were jointly and severally liable with the treatment Heavy Industries, as alleged in the main claim, but as seen in Article 3-2 (b) of the above, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have a damage claim based on Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Code against the treatment Heavy Industries as to the portion not accepted from the main claim against the defendant bankruptcy trustee. Thus, the plaintiffs' conjunctive claim against the defendant Treatment Heavy Industries, the ocean, the 2000 Infrastructure Co., Ltd., which is premised on the existence of such damage claim, is without merit, without examining further claims.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the main claims against the plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the "purchase" of the attached Form 3 against the defendant treatment 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6, and 6, the main claims against the defendant treatment 5, 5, and 6 are all dismissed. The main claims against the defendant treatment 1, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 6 are accepted within the above recognition scope, and the main claims against the above defendants are accepted within the above recognition scope, and the main claims against the defendant treatment 2, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all of the main claims against the above defendant treatment 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are all of the main claims against the plaintiff treatment 1, 2, 3 and 6 are all of the main claims for the plaintiff treatment 1, 3 and 6 are all of the main claims for the plaintiff treatment 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, and 5.

[Attachment]

Judges Kang Young-ho (Presiding Judge)