2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1.5 billion won and 1,293,962,36 won with 5% interest per annum from June 3, 2005 to July 20, 2007; 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 5% interest per annum from October 13, 200 to November 14, 2008 to the date of full payment; and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, and four of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,299,037,634 won and the amount of 4,862,00,000 won among them at the rate of 20% per annum from June 3, 2005 to the date of complete payment. As to the remaining 3,437,037,634 won, 5% per annum from October 13, 200 to the date of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff extended the claim for damages related to the first payment guarantee in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to pay is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,568,037,643 won with 5% interest per annum from June 3, 2005 to July 20, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

A. The defendant's status

(1) From March 18, 1994 to March 18, 1994, the defendant registered as the director or representative director of a joint-use construction company (hereinafter referred to as "joint-use construction") and has overall control over the management of the joint-use construction, accounting, personnel affairs, funds, etc. for the above period. At the same time, from January 1994, the general vice-chairperson of the joint-use group was the two-use group from April 1995 to March 198.

(2) Meanwhile, as a company established in around 1977 and engaged in designing, construction, supervision, etc. of civil engineering, construction, etc. in the domestic and overseas construction markets, a pair of construction projects is an aggressive business entity. From the beginning of the 1990s, the cumulative management of non-performing loans due to the aggravation of profitability due to low-price of government offices and the decline in the real estate market, the management situation has rapidly deteriorated due to the economic depression of the south Asia, which is a major overseas market, and the increase of financial costs due to the decline in group delivery and the increase of financial burden due to the assumption of debt due to the increase of debt burden due to the increase in group delivery, but each financial institution faces a liquidity crisis following the refusal of new loans while demanding the repayment of existing loans, the management normalization procedure was completed on November 12, 1998. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17094, Apr. 18, 1998>

(b) Accounting for divisional construction of pairs;

(1) Around the time when the financial statements for the fiscal year 1995, 196, and 1997 were prepared, the defendant ordered the non-party 1 or non-party 2, etc. at that time, who had been the representative director of the two-party construction, to make the settlement of net income as if the net income occurred, after receiving a report from the non-party 1 or the non-party 2, etc. on the fact that a large-scale net loss occurred in each fiscal year. This was due to the concern that if the accounting process is carried out as it is the fact that a large amount of deficit occurred in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, the foreign delivery does not receive new credit from the financial institution due to the significant decline in the foreign delivery, as well as that the pressure to recover existing loans and corporate bonds is increased, and the capital increase and the decrease of investment by new investors, etc., and

According to the above defendant's orders, the accounting officers of the Tranchi Construction have settled the accounts in installments as follows.

(2) In the case of the fiscal year 195 (the 19th period: January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995)

As a result of the provisional settlement of accounts for the fiscal year 1995, “ approximately KRW 23.1 billion in the current net loss, approximately KRW 36.7 billion in the capital loss,” would have been predicted in a normal way in accordance with corporate accounting standards, etc., the financial statements such as balance sheets and profit and loss statements were falsely prepared as “not less than KRW 23.1 billion in the current net profit, KRW 66.1 billion in the earned surplus,” by means of overappropriating construction profit, appropriation for bad debt allowances, and appropriation for bad debt depreciation expenses, etc., and publicly announced them on March 23, 1996.

(3) In the case of the fiscal year 1996 (the twenty-year period: January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996)

If the result of the provisional settlement of accounts for the fiscal year 1996 is dealt with in a normal way in accordance with corporate accounting standards, etc., “ approximately KRW 63 billion in the current net loss, approximately KRW 103.1 billion in the capital loss” was predicted, and in a way of overappropriating construction profit, the financial statements such as balance sheet and profit and loss statement are falsely prepared as if “not less than 4.9 billion in the current net profit, approximately 67.6 billion in the earned surplus,” and publicly announced them on March 22, 1997.

(4) In the case of the fiscal year 1997 (No. 21: January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997)

As a result of the provisional settlement of accounts for the fiscal year 1997 in normal ways in accordance with corporate accounting standards, etc., the “amount of KRW 85.6 billion for the current fiscal year, approximately KRW 109.5 billion for the capital loss” was anticipated, and the financial statements such as balance sheets and profit and loss statements were falsely prepared as “amount of KRW 2.1 billion for the current net income, KRW 68 billion for the current fiscal year,” and were publicly announced on March 21, 1998 by means of excessive appropriation of construction profit, excessive appropriation of assets under construction, etc.

C. Provision of the Plaintiff’s credit

(1) On or around July 15, 1996, Hanil Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) purchased each of the corporate bills (CP) worth KRW 5 billion at the face value issued by Tranchis Construction through Tranchisized Financial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CP purchase”), and then (hereinafter “the instant CP purchase”) purchased each of the corporate bills (hereinafter “the total term”) at the face value of KRW 10 billion issued by Tranchis Construction through EL Integrated Financial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant CP purchase”), and thereafter, the said KRW 15 billion was converted into stocks in accordance with the business improvement agreement of March 29, 199. < Amended by Act No. 5193, Mar. 29, 199>

(2) On September 12, 1997, the Plaintiff loaned 20 billion won to Samsung Construction (hereinafter “instant loan”); however, approximately KRW 6.5 billion was paid out; the remainder KRW 13,485,00,000 was converted into total stocks around that time in accordance with the Work Agreement for Corporate Improvement on March 29, 199 in the course of the Work Agreement for Both Construction.

(3) On October 13, 1997, the Plaintiff guaranteed the payment of principal and interest of the company bonds 98th on the joint-use construction (hereinafter “payment guarantee of this case”), and on October 13, 2000, paid a total of 30 billion won to bondholders, thereby acquiring claims for indemnity equivalent to the same amount for the joint-use construction. Thereafter, on June 22, 2001, the Plaintiff transferred the above claim for indemnity amount equivalent to 30 billion won for the joint-use construction to the Han Twit-type securitization specialized company on the joint-use construction at KRW 6803,877,795, and on July 22, 2001, notified the payment of the above assignment of claims to the Han-type Construction and delivered the above notification around that time. The Han-gu Light Specialized company was exempted from the payment of KRW 100,000,000,3000,3000,3000,000 won among the rest of the joint-use construction procedures.

(4) On June 29, 1998, the Plaintiff guaranteed the payment of the principal and interest of the company bonds 101th of Jun. 29, 1998 (hereinafter “instant payment guarantee”) and paid 15 billion won in total to the bondholder, but thereafter, the said KRW 15 billion was converted into total convertible bonds in accordance with the company improvement work agreement of June 7, 2001.

(d) Criminal judgment;

On February 17, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor of Seoul Central District Court 2004Da1376 on February 17, 2006 due to loans (including the purchase, loan, and guarantee of the first payment) by window dressing accounts (including the instant CP purchase, loan, and guarantee of the first payment), and occupational embezzlement by raising extra funds. On December 14, 2006, the Defendant appealed and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor of Seoul High Court 2006No430 on December 14, 2006 and four years of suspended execution. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 7-3, Gap evidence 9 through 13, 18, 19, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 15-2, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 17, non-party 3's testimony of the court of first instance, the purpose of all pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, reliance on the financial statements set out in the first to third window dressing accounting of this case, did not recover in reality an amount equivalent to the amount converted into investment pursuant to the corporate improvement work agreement entered into in the workout procedure for pair Construction. The Plaintiff, 23,196, 122,205 won (30 billion won - 681, 122,87, 795 won - 300 billion won - 15 billion won relating to the loans of this case, 207, 209 won related to the amount of damages of this case, 201, 300 won related to the amount of damages of this case, 30 billion won related to the loan of this case, 205 won related to the amount of damages of this case, 30 billion won related to the amount of damages of this case, 13,485,000 won related to the purchase of this case, 200 won related to the amount of damages of this case, 2015 billion won related to the payment guarantee of this case or 25 billion won.

B. Determination

(1) Failure to perform duties;

(A) As seen earlier, the defendant is a person registered as a director or a representative director of a two-use construction and at the same time a person who is the president or the president of a two-use group with due care as a good manager. When preparing financial statements, the defendant must prepare and disclose financial statements that adequately indicate all profits and expenses belonging to the fiscal period in order to clarify financial status and business performance in accordance with the corporate accounting standards and the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies, although there are duties to prepare and disclose the financial statements that appropriately indicate the financial status and business performance, if the status of the two-use construction recorded by the business operator is true, it shall not be said that the foreign confidence will significantly decline in the foreign delivery, thereby causing an increase in the recovery pressure of existing loans from the financial institution and resulting in the increase in the number of construction contracts, nor shall it be likely that the new financial statements will not be new to solve the financial shortage, and thus, it shall be deemed that the director of a stock company has neglected his duties due to bad faith or gross negligence.

(B) In relation to this, the defendant argued to the effect that he only participated in the important management judgment on the whole of the pairs groups from April 25, 1995 to March 14, 1998, and did not participate in the specific business affairs of the pairs construction, one of the affiliates. However, even according to the defendant's assertion, when considering the defendant's status in the pairs construction (the defendant still has been registered as a director during the above period) and in the pairs group, the defendant did not take any measures, even though he could sufficiently know the facts of the window dressings 1 through 3 of this case. Thus, the defendant did not take any measures, since he did not take any measures, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) A causal relationship

(A) The party's assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the financial statements prepared by the first window dressing accounting of this case had influenced the second payment guarantee of this case in the loans of this case and the second window dressing accounting of this case; the financial statements prepared by the second window dressing accounting of this case had affected the second payment guarantee of this case; the defendant asserted that there is no evidence to the effect that the plaintiff purchased the above CP from the General Finance Company in the case of the third window dressing purchase of this case, and that there is no evidence to see that the plaintiff referred to the second payment guarantee of this case; ② in the case of the loan of this case and the first payment guarantee of this case, the second fund of this case had been offered as security the same factory foundation up to the market price of 1,20 billion won; ③ in the case of the second payment guarantee of this case, the financial statements for the second fund of this case were for the redemption of the company bonds 75 times before the payment guarantee of the second fund of this case, and there is no causation between the first to the third window dressing accounting of this case and the plaintiff's loans of this case.

(B) The case of the instant CP purchase

There is no direct evidence that the Plaintiff considered the financial statements of Tranchis Construction in relation to the purchase of the instant CP.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, evidence Nos. 3-2, 3, 4, and evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 3 as of the end of each of the preceding years, the Plaintiff’s internal document of this case includes the financial situation including the net income item for pair Construction. In particular, the opinion column of the above application concerning the loan of this case and the guarantee of payment Nos. 1 stated that “the credit condition is good and it is deemed that there is no problem of recovery of claims.” As of the end of each of the preceding years, the Plaintiff prepared a credit investigation report on pair Construction as of Oct. 10, 1996, Aug. 13, 197, and July 20, 198. Based on the balance sheet and profit and loss statement, the content of the balance sheet and profit and loss statement is summary, based on this, it is recognized as follows: “The credit growth survey operator, C19, C19, C97, C19, C19, etc. for the status of pair Construction.

In addition, it is reasonable to deem that a company’s financial statements and audit report stating the audit result of the company’s financial statements are the most objective data revealing the company’s accurate financial standing through the Korea Stock Exchange, etc., and that there is an important basis for assessing the credit rating of corporate bonds or commercial papers issued by the company and determining whether to provide loans to financial institutions. Therefore, if an officer or employee of the company took part in large-scale window dressing accounts or an auditor of the company did not perform important audit procedures related to the company’s audit and inspection, it is reasonable to deem that the financial institution has reached providing loans to the company. If the above financial institution is clearly revealed, it is difficult to view that the company’s financial statements were to have reached an offering of loans to the company, i.e., feasibility of the repayment resources and business plan, preservation methods and prospects of claims, corporate profitability, business performance, and market research results, etc. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the company’s financial statements were purchased with two different factors, and thus, it is also difficult to 2007.257.27.

(C) The loan of this case and the payment guarantee of this case 1

In relation to the loan of this case and the payment guarantee of this case 1, it is difficult to conclude that the loan of this case of this case and the payment guarantee of this case 1 of this case are a loan of this case since the loan of this case of this case and the payment guarantee of this case 3-2 and 3-2 are stated only as the defendant's guarantee as the loan of this case. Even though the loan of this case and the payment guarantee of this case 1 of this case are a loan of this case, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement of the evidence No. 13 of this case No. 13 with regard to the loan of this case and the payment guarantee of this case 1 of this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and it is difficult to see that the financial institution as a financial statement of this case must provide credit merely because it is sufficiently secured if the debtor's financial situation is not good (refer to Supreme Court Decision 2006Da52259 delivered on June 28, 2007).

(D) In the case of the second payment guarantee of this case

As seen earlier, the plaintiff investigated the financial status of the joint-use construction at the time of the payment guarantee of this case. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 3-4, the plaintiff knew that the payment date of principal and interest of the joint-use construction of this case ( June 23, 1998) reaches the 75th payment date of the principal and interest of the joint-use construction of this case, which he guaranteed, was unable to repay the principal and interest of the joint-use construction of this case as the financial standing of the joint-use construction of this case was not sufficient. Thus, according to the above acknowledged facts, it is difficult to say that the plaintiff did not conduct the payment guarantee of this case if he knew of the fact of the third divided accounting of this case. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a causal relationship between the 3 divided accounting of this case and the 20th payment guarantee of this case.

Even if the causal link between the third-level company and the second-class company of this case is acknowledged, if an enterprise which is unable to repay the old company bonds issued in the past due to financial difficulties, is re-guaranteed for the new company bonds at the same time in order to raise the repayment fund, and the old company bonds are extinguished with funds raised by the issuance of the new company bonds, the financial institution was in the situation where the company's obligation to pay for the old company bonds is realized due to the lack of the company's ability to repay the new company bonds and the company's obligation to pay for the new company bonds can be deemed to have been extinguished by the repayment fund established by the new company's issuance of the new company bonds and the company's obligation to pay for the new company bonds instead. Thus, even if the company's obligation to pay for the new company bonds is not identical with the old company bonds in the law on the payment guarantee fund of the new company bonds, it cannot be viewed that the new company's payment guarantee fund cannot be deemed to have been paid within 207,000 after the issuance of the new company bonds to the extent of 20.

(3) Loss

(A) In the course of the workout program for pair-type construction, 13,485,00,000 won, the unredeemed portion of the Plaintiff’s claims arising from the purchase of the instant CP, among the instant loans, was converted into total stocks around that time pursuant to the corporate improvement work agreement on March 29, 199. The claim for indemnity amounting to 30 billion won due to the payment guarantee of the instant 1 was transferred to the Korea Light-type Securitization Specialized Co., Ltd. on June 22, 2001 at KRW 6,803,877,795, and Korea Light-type Specialized Co., Ltd. was to receive KRW 14,230,200,000 out of the 3 million loans, and the remaining 15,769,80,000,000 out of the total amount of the loans, and the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 14,140,000,00 as set-off among the aforementioned claims are acknowledged.

① As to the scope of compensating the Plaintiff’s losses arising from the purchase of the instant CP and the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant CP construction due to the extinguishment of the said debt-to-equity swap, the Plaintiff asserted that, with respect to the scope of compensating for the Plaintiff’s losses arising from the purchase of the instant CP and the instant CP and the instant 2-to-equity swap, the Plaintiff did not reach the Defendant, and even if the instant CP was effective against the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim that, as of the date of entry into force of the issuance of new stocks acquired through a debt-to-equity swap, reduced Plaintiff’s losses as to the instant CP purchase and loan as at the market price as at the time of the date of entry into force of the instant CP purchase and the instant 2-to-equity swap was entirely compensated for the Plaintiff’s losses arising from the instant 1, 2-to-equity swap, and that the Plaintiff suffered losses from the Plaintiff’s 2000,000 won of the instant 2-to-equity securitization specialized in the first 1, 700.

(B) Effect of debt-equity swap (the purchase of the instant CP and the Plaintiff’s damage due to the instant loan)

In a case where a financial institution erroneously grasps the financial structure of the company due to the large-scale window dressing accounting of its executives and employees, and provides loans to the company, the loans to the financial institution and the damages liability to the financial institution due to the window dressing accounting of its executives and employees are in the so-called quasi-joint and several relationship in which the other party’s obligations are extinguished if one of the liabilities overlaps with the other due to repayment, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6579, Jan. 18, 2008).

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, in a case where one of the claims is satisfied, the other claims should also be deemed extinguished by accomplishing the purpose of the purchase of the CP and the Plaintiff’s loan claim and the Defendant’s damage claim against the Defendant relating to the instant loan exist for a single purpose, i.e., the collection of the amount of credit extended by the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, a company improvement work agreement to promote the business normalization between creditor financial institutions and companies faced with financial difficulties and to enhance the creditor financial soundness of the creditor financial institutions is effective by a private agreement between the creditor financial institutions and the companies which are the creditors and the contents of such agreement. However, a debt-equity swap based on a corporate improvement work agreement on March 29, 199 is to set the amount of a debt-equity swap and to receive new shares in the amount calculated by dividing the amount of a debt-equity swap by 5,000 won, and to offset the above debt-equity swap by the amount of a debt-equity swap. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the debt-equity swap between the parties to a corporate improvement work agreement and the new shares acquired are the same as the amount of a debt-equity swap and the newly acquired amount of a debt-equity swap, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the debt-equity swap was terminated [The fact that a debt-equity swap was executed under the corporate improvement work agreement on March 29, 1994, 94,700, 2000 won

Thus, the plaintiff obtained the satisfaction of the claim to the extent of the amount corresponding to the amount of the claim to be converted into investment at the time of conversion into investment, and the above reasons, which cause the satisfaction of the claim, have an absolute effect on the defendant's damages liability against the plaintiff in the joint and several liability relationship with the plaintiff in Yong Construction, so the above damages liability should also be deemed to have extinguished as much as the amount of the claim.

(C) Plaintiff’s damage due to the payment guarantee No. 1 of this case

Where a financial institution transfers its loans to a specialized securitization company to settle non-performing loans after ascertaining the financial structure of the company due to large-scale accounting of its executives and employees and giving loans to the company, and receives compensation through settlement of the actual value of the loans, the financial institution's losses incurred from non-performing loans shall be determined by the amount of loans that are not recovered from the transfer price, and even if a specialized securitization company exercises its loans or obtains any satisfaction by exercising its right to collateral, it shall not be deemed that the damage claim against the executives and employees of the financial institution which already transferred its loans is naturally extinguished with substantial satisfaction as much as the equivalent amount is equivalent to the equivalent amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6579, Jan. 18, 2008). Thus, in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated for by its executives and employees, the equivalent amount shall not be automatically deducted (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65579

On June 22, 2001, the Plaintiff transferred a claim for indemnity amounting to 30 billion won for the construction of pair-type with respect to the instant case to a limited liability company specializing in light-type securitization of Korea on June 22, 2001, and received compensation amounting to 6,803,877,795 won following the settlement of accounts as to the actual value of the claim for reimbursement. As such, the Plaintiff’s damage arising from the payment guarantee 1 of this case is 23,196,122,205 won (30 billion won -6,803,877,795 won) which is the amount of the claim not recovered from the transfer price.

In regard to this, the defendant argued to the purport that the plaintiff's argument that the transfer difference is unfair, but the plaintiff's 14.9% of the shares of the Korea Light Securitization Specialized Liability Company was owned by 85.1% of the remaining landscaped among the shares of the 100% of the 100% of the 10% of the total pleadings, and that the Han Light Specialized Asset-Backed Limited Company was actually paid out by the plaintiff. At the liquidation of the Korea Light Light Specialized Limited Liability Company, the plaintiff acquired all assets of the Korea Light Light Financial Specialized Asset-Backed Limited Liability Company, and the plaintiff collected all the money paid out from pair Construction. Thus, the plaintiff's argument that the above transfer difference is all losses. However, the plaintiff's argument that the above transfer difference is unfair. However, the plaintiff's assertion that the 10% of the shares of the Korea Light Specialized Asset-Backed Liability Company was owned by 14.9% of the 85.1% of the remaining landscaped Co., Ltd. is no longer necessary for the plaintiff's claim to recognize the above special asset-backed as well.

(D) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s damages related to the purchase, loan, and payment guarantee of the instant CP based on the 1, 2,00 accounting of the instant case were finally remaining 23,196,122,205 won in relation to the payment guarantee of the instant 1.

C. Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription

The defendant has already inspected the construction of a pair before the commencement of the workout procedure for the two-use construction. Since the plaintiff was dispatched the business management group even after the commencement of the said procedure, it is evident that the plaintiff was aware of the fact of the window dressing settlement of the two-use construction around March 29, 199, which entered into a contract for the first corporate improvement work at the latest. Since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on May 6, 2004, about five years after the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff's damage claim under Article 750 of the Civil Act against the defendant was extinguished by the statute of limitations.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the plaintiff asserted against the defendant the right to claim damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act and the right to claim damages under Article 401 of the Commercial Act. As seen earlier, as long as the plaintiff's claim is accepted based on the right to claim damages under Article 401 of the Commercial Act, the above defense of the defendant is no longer reasonable (On the other hand, the period of extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages under Article 401 of the Commercial Act is ten years (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da6354, Dec. 22, 2006; 2005Da65579, Jan. 18, 2008). Since it is apparent in the record that the date of filing the lawsuit in this case is May 6, 2004, the period of extinctive prescription of the above right to claim damages under Article 401 of the Commercial Act does not expire even if it is calculated from the first payment guarantee date of this case).

D. Sub-determination

Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the above 23,196,122,205 won and damages for delay on its responsibility under Article 401 of the Commercial Act.

3. Limitation on liability; and

If a director is liable for damages to a third party by acting in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties by bad faith or gross negligence, the scope of such damages may be limited in light of the ideology of the damage compensation system, which is fair in sharing damages, by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the background of the director's breach of duties and the manner of the violation of duties, the degree of contribution to the third party's occurrence and expansion of damages, the relationship between the third party

In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s responsibilities against the Plaintiff are to be limited to KRW 1.5 billion in view of the following: (a) the background leading up to the division accounting of the instant case; (b) the degree of involvement therein; (c) the Plaintiff’s financial institution is required to have a higher level of examination ability and duty of care as to the credit standing and the possibility of recovery of the credit granted to the Plaintiff; and (d) the number of claims exempted by the Korea Light Tllopty Asset-Backed Limited Liability Company.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum of 206,037,634 won per annum under the Civil Act, which is the next day after the copy of the application for modification of the purport of this case was delivered to the defendant on May 26, 2005, which is the part cited by the judgment of the court of first instance among the plaintiff 1.5 billion won and its amounts, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 206,037,634 won per annum from the next day of the judgment of the court of first instance to the next day of July 20, 207, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to pay the principal and interest of the plaintiff for the payment guarantee of first instance until the next day of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the plaintiff's damages for delay within the scope of 1.5% per annum per annum of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the remaining damages for delay from October 13, 2000.

Judges Round (Presiding Judge)