손해배상 청구
1. The conjunctive claim based on subrogation of creditor among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's primary claim and its main claim.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant, who is a shareholder and director of the Company C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and with the Defendant, that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Nonparty Company for the purchase and sale of the instant brand-centered sand products, and the Nonparty Company entered into the said loan agreement with the Plaintiff by the end of September 2010 and pay the interest on investment by the due date.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b) The instant loan
According to the instant lending contract, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the account under the name of the non-party company on June 9, 2010, but the non-party company paid KRW 2 million as interest by the end of August 201, and did not repay the principal and interest.
C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the above loan with the Nonparty Company, and the Nonparty Company did not delegate its power to conclude a loan contract to the Defendant in the said lawsuit, but the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff was pronounced and finalized on April 2017.
(Seoul Central District Court 2016dan5203653). D.
On the other hand, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the defendant to claim damages against illegal acts, such as embezzlement, and the judgment of the defendant around June 2014 that the non-party company paid 240,000,50 won and damages for delay to the non-party company.
(Ground for recognition), entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings, without dispute (based on recognition)
2. Whether the part of the conjunctive claim based on subrogation of creditor among the lawsuit in this case is legitimate (determination of the defendant's defense prior to the merits)
A. The plaintiff 1's assertion of the parties is a director of the non-party company who has neglected to perform his/her duties by embezzlement of the company's funds. Thus, the plaintiff is liable for damages to the non-party company in accordance with Article 399 of the Commercial Act. Thus, the plaintiff shall act on behalf of the non-party