The part of the case against Defendant B is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the claim against Defendant C, the lower court unfairly excluded the Plaintiff in violation of the principle of shareholder equality in the distribution procedure of residual property by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in its reasoning.

The plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant C on the ground that it is not recognized that he neglected to work in bad faith or gross negligence.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. A shareholder of a stock company being liquidated with respect to a claim against the defendant company, if the liquidator has any remaining property at the time when the company's obligation is fully satisfied, may exercise the right to claim distribution of the remaining property against the stock company being liquidated from the time when the obligation is fully satisfied, and thereafter, the remaining property has been fully distributed to the company without excluding some shareholders, thereby making the

Even if the shareholder's right to claim the distribution of residual property is not extinguished.

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for distribution of residual property against the Defendant Company on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant Company currently owns the residual property as alleged by the Plaintiff, while it is reasonable to view that the company’s liquidator was an active property in real possession at the time of demanding distribution of residual property as a result of the company’s full repayment of the company’

However, according to the above legal principles, if the liquidator had any residual property when he fully performs his obligation, he subsequently distributes all the residual property of the defendant company, and the defendant company did not hold the residual property at the time when the plaintiff requested the distribution of the remaining property.