2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability for damages equivalent to the amount of non-party 1, who was the owner of the plaintiff company, who was a professional manager of the non-party 1 for the immediately preceding ten months without knowing the fact of raising funds for the non-party 1 is in violation of the principle of fair sharing of damages or the principle of good faith, and thus, the defendant's liability should be mitigated considering all circumstances.

As alleged above, it is obvious in this court that the Defendant, who was a professional management in the claim suit of this case, sought compensation for damages in the same amount as that of Nonparty 1 in the original judgment, much more than the extent of the claim group’s actual owner and the defendant who was Nonparty 1.

However, in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 3, 4, and 9-1, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 9-4, and 11, it can be acknowledged that the defendant, who was the president of the claim group at the time of the claim group and was the representative director of the plaintiff company, filed a report to the non-party No. 1-2, who was the executive director in charge of financial general (e.g., interest, funds, and materials) directly or through the defendant, on the part of the non-party No. 2, who was the director in charge of financial general (e.g., interest, funds and materials) and reported the matters concerning the financial transactions of the three company that was reported to the president of the group at the time of the claim group, the defendant was in charge of the management of the plaintiff as the representative director of the plaintiff company at the 15 months group and the defendant was the representative director of the plaintiff company at the first instance court

Therefore, even if the defendant recognizes the circumstance alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to see that the claim in this case is contrary to the principle of fairness or the principle of good faith, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the defendant'

B. The defendant asserts that it is unreasonable that the court of first instance recognized damages for delay of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the complaint to the day of the lawsuit promotion, etc. under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings even though

In light of all the materials mentioned in the instant lawsuit, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s assertion in dispute over the existence or scope of performance obligation exists as a reasonable ground, and the above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Yellow Jung-sik (Presiding Judge)