205Da44664 (Joint Wages) Wages

205Da44671 (Joint Wages) Wages

205Da44688 (Joint Wages) Wages

205Da44695 (Joint Wages) Wages

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff Law Firm Barun

Attorneys Cho Young-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Jin-Jin Law, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

205Na5821 (Consolidation), 5838 (Consolidation)

5845 (Joints) 5852 (Joints)

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. As to the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision is as stated in its holding.

Then, the agreement to compensate for losses of this case and the criteria for the special payment of retirement allowances (hereinafter referred to as "contributing them").

The peace in which the agreement to compensate for losses in this case is reached is that it will participate in the issue of capital increase and acquire the status of shareholders.

(1) In the event that the employee retires from office, the employee shall be entitled to compensate for the total amount of his/her investment loss.

to the shareholders of the corporation, to ensure that the corporation absolutely guarantees the recovery of its capital, and to the other states.

granted a superior right not recognized to States, in violation of the principle of shareholder equality.

was justified in the determination that the agreement to compensate for losses of this case was null and void.

shareholders, even if the collective agreement or rules of employment governing the

It cannot be denied that the primary purpose is to compensate for losses arising from the status.

As long as it is not possible to escape from the subject of the principle of shareholder equality, and the time of conclusion thereof.

Even before the acquisition of the plaintiffs' shareholder qualification, the plaintiffs have acquired new shares by acquiring them.

The purpose is to compensate for losses incurred by the sale of new shares after the acquisition of qualification.

It shall be deemed to violate the principle of equality of shareholders, and the cost at the time of the agreement to compensate for the loss of this case

the reason that high courts were employees of the Peace Bank and the market price was substantially below par value.

This is because the judgment of the court below cannot be viewed differently. The shareholder deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal cannot be viewed differently.

There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. As long as the agreement on the compensation of losses in this case is deemed null and void on the above grounds, one’s own.

Whether a violation of the principle of prohibition against acquiring shares does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

The agreement to compensate for losses of this case violates the principle prohibiting the acquisition of treasury stocks.

The argument in the grounds of appeal on the premise that it is true is without merit.

C. Article 137 of the Civil Act is a voluntary provision applied in the area where the principle of self-government of intention is controlled.

Since part of a juristic act is in violation of the validity provision, which is a mandatory law, and becomes null and void.

in the case of whether the invalidation of that part affects the validity and invalidation of the remaining part;

(1) If an individual statute provides for the effect of partial invalidation, that provision shall prevail.

section 137 of the Civil Code shall apply, in principle, unless there is such a provision, or

In light of the legislative intent of the Act with the calendar regulations and its validity regulations, the remaining parts are null and void.

b) if there is a result that is obviously contrary to the regulations of effect and the intent of the law.

We cannot say that the part of money can not be invalidated (Supreme Court Decision 2004 June 11, 2004).

203Da1601, etc.). Accordingly, this case’s motive for acquiring new shares by the Plaintiffs in this case

The acquisition of new shares in this case on the ground that the agreement to compensate for losses is null and void in violation of the principle of shareholder equality.

(2) If the purchase price of the shares can be returned as unjust enrichment by deeming that the purchase price of the shares can be invalidated

in fact, this guarantees the recovery of capital only to the plaintiffs, unlike other shareholders.

This result would result in a result contrary to the principle of shareholder equality, which is a mandatory provision.

As such, the new shares acquisition contract of this case should not be deemed null and void (Supreme Court Decision 6 June 2005).

10. See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63671 Decided 2002

The court below held that each of the subscription price of new shares is null and void even in the plaintiffs' new shares subscription contract.

The rejection of a claim seeking substantial restitution of unjust enrichment is determined in accordance with the above legal principles.

Therefore, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles.

D. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is important to examine the plaintiffs as the peace bank.

As long as the obligation to pay retirement pay upon the settlement of accounts has been in force, the plaintiffs have retired.

Payment of the subscription price for new shares in this case with the funds raised by interim settlement of accounts;

and the court below's act of acquiring new shares after making the best payment.

Even if the defendant did not make a direct decision on the defendant's assertion that invalidation is null and void, this decision

Since it cannot affect the result, it is unlawful in the judgment of the court below in relation to the above assertion.

shall not be subject to this subsection.

E. Examining the record in light of equity and good faith, the lower court’s judgment based on its reasoning.

Taking into account the circumstances, a measure to reduce the defendant's amount of compensation is justified, and there is a ground for appeal.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision is as stated in its holding.

The market price of shares shall be determined by the following Peace Bank in order to increase its equity capital ratio in a short period.

The method of preparing specific investment funds, such as interim settlement of retirement allowances, in cases where the amount is substantially below par;

In addition, it is necessary to present the agreement to compensate for losses contrary to the principle of shareholder equality at par value.

The decision that the act of inducing the plaintiffs to participate in the issue of new shares issued was unlawful is justified.

In doing so, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the illegality requirement.

There is no violation of law such as law.

B. Examining the record in light of the principle of fairness and good faith, the lower court’s judgment is based on its reasoning.

Taking into account the circumstances, a measure to reduce the defendant's amount of compensation to 80% is justified, and there is a ground for appeal

There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles concerning comparative negligence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is assessed against all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jae-sik

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Noh Jeong-hee