주주대표소송
All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor’s objection.
1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except where the reasoning for this part is written or added as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Each "G" of the two parallels of five parallels and one parallels of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to "H", respectively.
This Court shall have referred to as "the first instance court" in the fourth and second parallel of the judgment of the first instance.
The following shall be added between the fourth lower judgment and the lower judgment:
[3] On August 19, 2019, the Intervenor submitted to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor an application for participation in the court as D’s shareholders.
Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Nos. 8-8” shall be construed as “Nos. 8, A, or 1 through 7 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).” 2. The reasoning of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the court of first instance is the corresponding part of the judgment, except for the cases being dried or added as follows, and thus, shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. In addition, the following is added between 3 parallels and Ha two parallels in the first instance judgment. In addition, as the Defendant sells the instant real estate to H, D incurred loss equivalent to the market value that could have been incurred due to the increase in the value of the instant real estate in the future or loss of business opportunities using the said real estate.
A person shall be appointed.
3. Determination
A. 1) The defendant, as the representative director of D, violated the law, was actually paid KRW 1.5 billion on the ground that the defendant received rebates from K total number of J groups in the course of selling each of the instant real estate to H. As such, the fact that the defendant was subject to criminal punishment for the crime of taking property in breach of trust is recognized as above. Accordingly, the defendant committed a violation of law against Article 382-3 or 399(1) of the Commercial Act in the course of selling each of the instant real estate as a director of D, in the course of selling it to H. D.