손해배상(기)
1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
Then, “A sentence was rendered at the bottom of 3 pages” and “Defendant B appealed against the above judgment on the ground of unfair sentencing by Seoul Central District Court 2018No1120, but the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on December 7, 2018 and became final and conclusive on December 15, 2018.”
6th 7th 7th 7th 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 2,250,000 won “the fact that he remitted KRW 22,250,000,000, but received KRW 1,303,130 from the said P on January 23, 2014.”
"2,250,00 won" for 7 pages 9 shall be "20,946,870 won (22,250,000 won - 1,303,130 won)".
7.The following shall be added between the 10th parallel and the 11th parallel parallel:
Defendant B paid KRW 22,250,00 to P is merely an act of lending P, which is a magazine in the field of livestock industry, under the name of operating funds to normalize its management, but has not been repaid due to the aggravation of management. As such, Defendant B’s act of lending the Plaintiff’s business pursuant to the business judgment conducted to expand the Plaintiff’s business to the field of agriculture in the field of agriculture cannot be deemed an embezzlement. In lending the company funds to another person, if the director, etc. of the company extended the company funds to a third person, he/she did so with the knowledge that it would cause damage to the company if he/she had already lost his/her ability to repay debts and lent the funds to him/her without any reasonable and reasonable measures such as receiving sufficient collateral, such loans are an act of causing another person’s profit and causing damage to the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do727, Nov. 9, 206).