B. The case holding that there was an error in failing to exercise the right of explanation, even though the defendant's embezzlement was "illegal act" or "illegal corporate disposition" was not clear.

B. The Defendants embezzled the money that was not actually paid as if it were falsely paid on the account book and embezzled the money, and the losses incurred by the Defendants were limited to the amount imposed by illegal accounting, or the Plaintiff’s wrongful accounting of labor costs that were reasonably paid by the Company and did not properly satisfy the mine documents. As a result of the tax investigation, the Defendants imposed taxes by failing to be recognized as legitimate expenditure. Furthermore, as the Defendants did not take appropriate procedures for objection against this, the Defendants’ act was ultimately subject to unfair taxation, and thus, the Defendants’ act was not clear as to whether the Defendants’ act constitutes tort. However, the lower court’s act was unlawful in recognizing the Defendants’ joint illegal act as a joint illegal person without clarifying the fact of the cause of the claim by exercising appropriate right of explanation.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below is as follows. In other words, the former representative director of the plaintiff company, the defendant 1, the former representative director of the plaintiff company, and the defendant 2 as defendant 1's fraudulent act. The above non-party and the defendants jointly supervise the plaintiff's company's expansion of warehouse between June 30, 1979 and September 30, the non-party were in charge of the construction as the president of the plaintiff company at the time. The defendant 1 was also involved in the construction of this case's 1 and 2. The defendant 2 was in charge of the total supervision of this case's 30 billion won and 19,605,400 won, and the defendant 2 was jointly and severally responsible for the above processed labor income of the plaintiff 19,280,000 won and 300,000 won, which were the above processed labor income of the plaintiff 20,000 won and 198,000 won.

However, in order to recognize liability for damages caused by a tort, the fact that there was an illegal act committed intentionally or by negligence and that there is a proximate causal relation with such illegal act should be recognized. If a tax is imposed on a taxpayer by the exercise of national tax authority, if the disposition of imposition is legitimate, any national shall be obligated to pay the tax. However, if the disposition of imposition is illegal or unjust, any national shall be entitled to remedy in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and it cannot be readily concluded that the amount of the tax imposed is damage caused by a tort.

However, the court below concluded that the Plaintiff Company 1 was liable for damages due to the Plaintiff’s wrongful accounting audit conducted by the Defendants and Nonparty 2, and concluded that the Defendants Company 1 was not liable for damages due to the Plaintiff’s wrongful accounting audit conducted by the Plaintiff Company 1,000,000 won, which was not actually paid due to the Defendants’ losses. In addition, the lower court’s determination that the Defendants were liable for damages due to the Defendants’ wrongful accounting audit, and that the Defendants’ embezzlement was not limited to the amount imposed due to unfair accounting, or that the Defendants did not embezzled the company’s funds. As such, the lower court did not recognize that the Defendants were liable for damages due to the Defendants’ wrongful accounting audit conducted by the Plaintiff Company 1,000,000 won, and that the Defendants’ above series of acts did not constitute tort. However, according to the records, the lower court’s assertion that the Defendants were not liable for damages due to the Defendants’ wrongful accounting audit conducted by the Plaintiff 2,000 won, 30,000 won.

Therefore, even though the court below should have deliberated on the existence of the above unclear cause of the plaintiff's claim, it did not reach this point, and thereafter, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the liability for damages caused by the tort that the defendants are liable for damages as joint tortfeasor, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations or in the order of reasoning. Since the above illegality is recognized as considerably contrary to the justice and equity, it cannot reverse the judgment of the court below, and therefore, the argument on this point is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)