beta
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2016.07.14 2015가합50438

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 198, the Plaintiff and the Defendant established C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) whose head office is located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si (hereinafter “E”).

From July 12, 2004 to December 18, 2012, the defendant performed his duties as representative director. The plaintiff owns 9,980 shares out of 20,000 shares.

B. On October 15, 2007, the Defendant established C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with the head office located in the Gangwon Yangyang-gun F.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E was supplied with liquefied petroleum gas by H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) and re-supplyed it to Dong-to-dong Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong-to-dong Energy”), and had approximately KRW 900 million claim for the price of goods equivalent to the same energy.

The Defendant, without permission from the Plaintiff, established G and purchased gas filling stations owned by the same energy (hereinafter “instant gas filling stations”) in its name, set off claims against E for the payment of goods, and subsequently acquired them by means of transfer of the instant gas filling stations to I who are the branch of the instant land.

Since the Defendant’s act of breach of trust causes damages equivalent to KRW 900 million, the Plaintiff is liable for damages against the Defendant pursuant to Article 403 of the Commercial Act as a shareholder who owns more than 1/100 of the total number of issued shares.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 9 and the witness J's testimony, it is recognized that the defendant purchased the gas filling facility of this case from the same energy on October 18, 2007 and offset the purchase price into the goods-price claim amounting to KRW 800,000,000,000, E at the time of the purchase price, and the above gas filling facility was considered as G's property, and the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the establishment of G and the purchase of the above gas filling facility.

However, Gap evidence 5 to 8, each statement of 10 to 15, witness J's testimony, and H of this Court.

참조조문