손해배상(기)
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.
1. The reasoning for this part of the facts admitted by the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims
A. According to the facts established prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant committed the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc. in collusion with co-defendant C, etc. of the first instance trial, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s aggregate amounting to KRW 1,103,697,710, respectively.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount (Plaintiff A A 150,000,000, and Plaintiff Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation 300,000,000) for which the Plaintiffs seek as part of the damages, and the damages for delay.
B. The defendant's defense (1) summary of the defendant's assertion (A) lawsuit of this case was filed three years after the plaintiffs knew of the damage and the perpetrator caused by the defendant's illegal act.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' right to claim damages against the defendant has expired by prescription.
(B) The Defendant repaid KRW 200,000,000 out of the damages against the Plaintiff Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation.
(2) (A) The initial date of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act (three years) is “the date when the person becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator,” and in the case of a corporation, the date when the person becomes aware of the damage
However, if the representative of a corporation commits an illegal act against the corporation, the profit of the corporation and its representative is contrary to the profit of the corporation, so it is difficult to expect the representative of the corporation to exercise the right to claim damages from the corporation, and it is generally denied the power of representation, so the representative of the corporation is not sufficient to recognize the
Therefore, in this case, at least another representative, officer, who has the authority to properly preserve the interests of the corporation.