[2] In a case where a director's liability for damages against the company is recognized, whether the amount of damages can be limited in consideration of all the circumstances such as the background leading up to the director's breach of duties

[2] In a case where a director acts in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation or neglects his duties and thereby is liable for damages to the company, the scope of damages can be limited in light of the ideology of the fair compensation system, such as the content and nature of the pertinent business, the background leading up to the pertinent director's breach of duties and the manner leading up to such violation, objective circumstances or degree involved in the occurrence and expansion of damages to the company, the degree of contribution of the ordinary director to the company, the pertinent director's benefits arising from such violation, the existence of company's organization failure, and the establishment of risk management system.

As a member of the board of directors, a director of a corporation is not limited to the expression of intent on the agenda presented to the board of directors, but is obligated to comprehensively monitor the performance of duties by other directors in charge, as well as the duties of the director in charge. Thus, when a director of a corporation neglects the performance of duties of other directors in charge of duties in spite of the existence of any grounds to suspect that the performance of duties by the director in charge of the company was illegal, he cannot be exempted from liability for damages suffered by the company (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu1954, Jun. 25, 1985; 2002Da8131, May 24, 200

원심은, 그 채택 증거들에 의하여 파산자 동방페레그린증권 주식회사(이하 파산 전후를 구분하지 아니하고 '파산자'라 한다)가 유가증권의 매매, 위탁매매, 매매의 중개 또는 대리 등의 업무를 영위하던 증권회사로서 1999. 12. 30. 서울지방법원으로부터 파산선고결정을 받았고, 피고 1은 1996. 4. 1.부터 1998. 1. 15.까지 파산자의 대표이사로, 피고 2는 1993. 11. 1.부터 1998. 1. 21.까지 파산자의 상무이사(총무팀, 자금팀 등 담당)로 각 근무한 사실, 파산자의 외국측 주주회사인 홍콩 소재 페레그린 인베스트먼트 홀딩스 리미티드(Peregrine Investment Holdings Ltd., 이하 '홍콩 페레그린'이라 한다)의 자회사인 페레그린 채권 유한공사(Peregrine Fixed Income Ltd.)가 1997. 4.경 나산그룹의 재무구조 개선을 위한 방안으로 해외에서 나산그룹 명의의 외화채권(FRN)을 발행·판매하여 외화자금을 조달하여 주고 미화 100만 달러의 용역대가를 받기로 하는 내용의 재무구조 조정계약(외화자금조달 용역계약)을 체결하였다가 나산그룹의 신용도가 좋지 않아 위 외화채권 발행계획이 연기되자, 파산자의 부사장인 워렌 디 알드리지(Warren D. Allderige, 이하 '워렌'이라 한다)가 나산그룹에 단기자금을 제공하여 줄 목적으로 1997. 5. 21. 나산종합건설 주식회사(이하 '나산종건'이라 한다)가 발행한 무보증 기업어음(CP, 이하 'CP'라 한다) 100억 원 상당을, 같은 해 6. 20. 추가로 같은 CP 80억 원 상당을 각 매입하였고, 그 후 위 CP의 만기를 5회에 걸쳐 연장해 주었는데, 나산종건이 1998. 1. 13. 부도를 냄으로써 파산자는 위 CP 대금 180억 원 중 60억 원만을 회수하고 나머지 120억 원 상당을 회수하지 못한 사실, 워렌은 원래 페레그린 채권 유한공사에서 최고위급 간부인 매니징 디렉터(Managing Director)로 근무하다가 1997. 3. 3.부터 파산자의 사실상 부사장으로서 채권관련 업무를 전담하여 오면서, 위 CP의 매입 당시 이사회에 이를 안건으로 회부하거나 다른 임원들에게 알리지 아니한 채 단독으로 위 CP의 매입을 결정하고 채권팀장에게 실무적인 업무를 처리하도록 지시하였으며, 1997. 7.경에 이르러서야 위험관리위원회 및 임원회의에서 처음으로 이를 보고한 사실, 파산자의 회사내규인 상품채권운용지침에는 관리대상에 해당하는 채권형 유가증권을 국공채 및 특수채, 회사채, 신종사채, 씨디(CD)·개발신탁 및 이와 유사하거나 이와 관련하여 회사가 리스크를 부담할 수 있는 증권으로 규정하는 한편, 회사채는 원칙적으로 보증채만 투자하고, 신종사채 및 무보증채는 7일 내의 중개 목적만을 위해 매매할 수 있으며, 다만 불가피한 사정에 의해 무보증회사채, 신종사채를 보유하여야 될 경우에는 담당임원의 승인, 리스크 담당부서에 대한 통보 및 임원회의 보고 등이 필요한 것으로 규정함으로써 CP는 원칙적으로 관리대상 유가증권에 포함되지 아니한 사실을 인정한 다음, 워렌이 나산종건 CP를 매입할 당시에는 아직 CP가 증권거래법상 유가증권에 해당하지 아니하였고, 또한 파산자의 회사내규인 상품채권운용지침상으로 무보증 CP가 관리대상 유가증권에 명시적으로 포함되지 않았으며, 나아가 이를 예외적으로 보유할 만한 불가피한 사정이 있었다거나 그 보유에 대한 요건이나 절차를 갖추었다고 볼 수 없고, 나산종건은 당시 신용평가등급이 비(B) 등급에 불과하고 재무구조 조정작업을 서둘러 진행해야 할 정도로 재무구조가 상당히 취약한 상태에 있었으므로, 만약 나산종건의 재무구조나 신용도 등에 대하여 조금만 주의를 기울여 조사하였던들 향후 위 CP 매입대금의 회수가 어려워질 가능성이 있음을 어렵지 않게 알 수 있었다고 보여지므로 워렌의 주도로 이루어진 위 CP의 매입은 임원으로서의 선관주의의무 내지 충실임무를 해태한 행위이고, 피고 1이 비록 워렌에 의한 위 CP의 매입과정에 직접 관여하였다거나 그 매입사실을 알고 있었다고 볼 증거는 없지만, 파산자의 대표이사로서 대외적으로는 회사를 대표하고 대내적으로는 업무 전반의 집행을 담당하는 직무권한을 가지고 있는 만큼, 회사업무의 전반을 총괄하여 다른 이사의 직무집행을 감시·감독하여야 할 지위에 있고, 더욱이 워렌은 파산자의 외국측 주주인 홍콩 페레그린의 자회사인 페레그린 채권 유한공사에서 근무한 배경을 가진 자로서 정식이사로 선임되기 이전부터 사실상 부사장으로서의 직무를 수행하면서 영업과 관련된 업무 전반을 독자적으로 처리하여 왔으므로 그의 직무집행과 관련하여서는 보다 면밀한 감시·감독이 요구되는 상황이었다고 할 것임에도 불구하고, 워렌이 무려 180억 원에 이르는 CP를 매입함에 이르렀음에도 이를 제대로 감시·감독하지 못한 채 방치한 것은 대표이사에게 요구되는 선관주의의무 내지 감시의무 등을 해태한 것으로 봄이 상당하므로, 피고 1에게 파산자가 입은 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다고 판단하였다.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegality of the CP purchase and the director's liability to the company, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the purchase of U.S. stocks

The court below found that the 2nd executive officer of the non-party 1 was responsible for the above 3th executive officer's 4th executive officer's 5th executive officer's 4th executive officer's 4th executive officer's 5th executive officer's 5th executive officer's 8th executive officer's 1th executive officer's 2th executive officer's 3th executive officer's 2th executive officer's 1th executive officer's 3th executive officer's 2th executive officer's 3th executive officer's 4th executive officer's 8th executive officer's 4th executive officer's 5th executive officer's 2th executive officer's 3th executive officer's 4th executive officer's 5th executive officer's 8th executive officer's 196th executive officer's 3th executive officer's 5th executive officer's 196th executive officer's 5th executive officer's 196th executive officer's 197.

In light of the records, the fact finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the illegal solicitation under the Securities and Exchange Act and the director's duty to monitor (However, in the recording, there is no evidence that the court below erred in finding the bankrupt's purchase of the listed stocks under Article 188-4 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, or there is no other purpose of causing others to make a wrong judgment, and there is no reason to believe that the bankrupt's purchase of the listed stocks constitutes an unfair trade act such as price manipulation which is prohibited under Article 188-4 (1) of the Securities and Exchange Act, but it does not affect the conclusion that the defendants are liable for damages with respect to the purchase of the listed stocks).

3. Regarding the purchase of stocks unregistered on KOSDAQ

The court below, based on its adopted evidence, found that Defendant 1 suffered damages from the 3.78,712,00 won in relation to the stocks of the United Nations, e.g., two Eths Co., Ltd. (former mutual connection shares), e., Co., Ltd. (former mutual connection shares), e.g., Eths Co., Ltd. (former shares), and Eths Co., Ltd. shares were registered on KOSDAQ, and as a result of disposal of the shares of the Macs due to the decline of their price, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the e.g., e., e., 3., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., 1984

4. As to the discharge of liability

The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the directors' liability for damages against the company can be exempted only with the consent of the total shareholders pursuant to Article 400 of the Commercial Act, and even if the defendants' assertion is made itself, it is evident that the directors' liability for damages against the company can be exempted only with the consent of the total shareholders pursuant to Article 400 of the Commercial Act, and that the directors' liability for damages was made only by the shareholders who fall short of the total shareholders or representative directors who are not authorized to be exempted from the directors' liability for damages, and that the directors' liability for damages was made by the directors' exemption from the directors' liability for damages. The judgment of the court below is proper, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to exemption from directors' liability as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

5. As to limitation on liability

In a case where a director is liable for compensating the company for damages by committing an act in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, the scope of the compensation for damages can be limited in light of the ideology of the fair compensation system, taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents and nature of the pertinent business, the background leading up to the pertinent director's breach of duties and the manner of the pertinent director's violation of duties, objective circumstances involved in the occurrence and expansion of the company's damages, the degree of contribution to the company of ordinary directors, the pertinent director's benefits accrued from the relevant violation, the existence of the company'

However, in this case where the plaintiff claims only part of the total amount of damages suffered by the bankrupt due to the defendants' failure to perform his duties, it is difficult to view that the reasons alleged in the grounds of appeal fall under the circumstances that the plaintiff should limit the amount of damages less than the amount claimed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court below's decision that accepted the total amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff as to the defendants' failure to perform their duties is just and it is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of

6. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)