손해배상(기)
All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The summary of the defendants' defense 1) The plaintiff has a joint representative director E and B in the case of the plaintiff, and the representative director jointly performs the litigation of this case, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case by E alone. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is accompanied by the law.
2) Where a stock company files a lawsuit against a director or auditor, the auditor represents the company with respect to the lawsuit. In this case, the representative director has no authority to represent the company, and the lawsuit in this case is accompanied by the law.
B. 1) According to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that Defendant B was registered as the representative director, and Defendant B was registered as a joint representative director in the Plaintiff’s corporate registry at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B was in the Plaintiff’s representative director around January 21, 2021, which is the date of closing the pleadings of the instant lawsuit. Thus, the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed unlawful.
The defendants' defense prior to this part of the merits is without merit.
2) Where a stock company files a lawsuit against a director or a director, the auditor represents the company with respect to the lawsuit (Article 394(1) of the Commercial Act). In this case, the representative director has no authority to represent the company with respect to the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da86918, Jul. 28, 201). As seen earlier, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant B was in the status of the representative director around January 21, 2021, which is the closing date of the argument in this case. In the lawsuit against the auditor of the company, the representative director represents the company in accordance with Article 394(1) of the Commercial Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant D is the director of the company, and the lawsuit against the defendants is legitimate.
This part of the defendants' defense is without merit.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) From October 2016, the date of establishment of the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s representative director and Defendant B.