손해배상 등 청구의 소
1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and all appeals against Defendant B and C are dismissed.
2...
1. The reasons why the court has used this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the corresponding parts as follows. As such, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The following shall be added to the seventh and fourteenth sentence of the first instance court:
Defendant C asserts to the effect that Defendant C’s liability for damages should no longer exist since all issues, including damages arising from the division and merger of this case, have been resolved through the settlement between F and Defendant C, which actually operated the Plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted up to the first instance, such as the statement in subparagraphs 5 through 9 cannot be readily concluded that the damages arising from the division and merger of this case was settled between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the above assertion cannot be accepted.
(b)in the fourth and fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added:
As to this, Defendant B asserted to the effect that, at the time of the merger by split, Defendant C committed a breach of trust against the Plaintiff while performing the Plaintiff’s business as the representative director, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable under Article 35(1) of the Civil Act.
However, even if the above tort committed by Defendant C constitutes an act in violation of the Plaintiff’s duty as the representative director, insofar as the above tort concurrently committed an act in relation to his duty as the actual operator of Defendant B, the Defendant B is liable to compensate for damages under Article 35(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.
Furthermore, Defendant B asserts that since Defendant C’s illegal acts concurrently serve as the representative director of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and Defendant B should be jointly and severally liable.