2. D;

3. E.

4. F;

5. G.

6. H;

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected Defendant D’s assertion that the Defendants were negligent in consenting to the resolution approving the lending of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) and N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “N”), and further, due to the Plaintiff’s full-time audit committee member, the Defendants cannot be held liable as a director, and as the auditor had properly pointed out the reduction of the amount of credit extended to the large shareholder, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that there was no negligence.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fiduciary duty of an officer of a financial

Defendant D shall be examined ex officio with respect to the remaining Defendants’ assertion that there were errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the specification of damage claim in the grounds of appeal.

A. Even if a creditor has multiple damage claims against the same debtor, so long as the damage claims are separate claims that differ from the time of occurrence and the cause of occurrence, they constitute separate subject matter of lawsuit, and each of these damage claims may differ from the date of commencement of extinctive prescription and the defenses asserted by the debtor. Thus, the creditor who seeks to bring a lawsuit must specify the amount of the claim by each damage claim. Accordingly, the court must specify the amount to be granted by each damage claim. This legal principle also applies in cases where the creditor claims only part of multiple damage claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da25865, Sept. 20, 2007; 2007Da53735, Nov. 12, 2009). In addition, in a civil lawsuit, the purport and scope of the claim should be clearly identified, and the issue is specific, so the court shall ex officio order the defendant to correct the claim, regardless of whether the claim is alleged or not, and shall order the correction thereof to be dismissed (see, 2008Da197, 198.5.

B. According to the records, since the plaintiff conspired with the defendant C in violation of his occupational duties and caused the plaintiff to borrow money to M and N, and the remaining defendants agreed with the resolution approving each of the above loans, the defendants asserted that they are liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to each of the above loans and claim part of the total amount of damages against the defendants. Thus, the court below should order the plaintiff to specifically specify the purport of the claim by each damage claim, and should have dismissed the plaintiff's claim amount based on each of the damage claims. However, the court below did not take such measures and did not specify the amount of damages by each of the damage claims in accordance with the plaintiff's purport, but comprehensively set the amount of damages against the defendants without specifying the amount of damages claim by each of the damage claims.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the purport of the claim, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il

Justices Kim Jae-in