1. Judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the gist of the ground of appeal is that the Defendant did not participate in the process of raising funds or offering collateral in the process of acquiring the instant company, and that the Defendant was paid the existing debt of the instant company in the process of offering collateral, and that the damage to the instant company was not incurred through the offering of collateral.

In order to raise funds necessary for corporate acquisition, the acquirer takes out a loan from a financial institution and later uses the loan method (one LBO) that provides the assets of the acquired company as collateral, and the acquired company bears the risk of losing assets provided as collateral if the main debt is not repaid.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the offer of security only for the acquirer is unlimited, and it may be permitted only where the acquirer provides consideration equivalent to the risk-bearing due to the offer of security by the acquired company. If the acquirer arbitrarily provided the acquired company’s property as security without any consideration, then it shall be deemed that the acquirer or the third party has obtained economic benefits equivalent to the value of security, and the acquired company has suffered economic damage equivalent to the same amount.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7027 Decided November 9, 2006, etc.). According to the evidence, when acquiring the instant company, the parties, including the Defendant, borrowed the total amount of the acquisition price from the bond company and prepared it from the bond company, and for the purpose of securing the loan obligation, the fact that the instant company established the right to collateral security on the real estate owned by R among the instant companies is known.

(2).