잔여재산배분권에 기한 손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The primary claim is that the Plaintiff owns 60,000 shares (25% shares issued) out of the F’s total issued shares 2.40,000 shares. Defendant C owned 180,000 shares out of F’s shares 2.40,000 shares, and constitutes an order for business instruction under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act concerning F. Defendant B and D held office as a director and representative director of F. Defendant E as the representative director, and Defendant E was dissolved. The Plaintiff was appointed as a liquidator. The Defendants violated Article 350 of the Commercial Act and Article 350 of the Commercial Act and the principle of shareholder equality, as well as the portion equivalent to F’s share of the Plaintiff’s shares out of F’s assets, and thereby, caused property damage to the Plaintiff. However, in the event of a company’s violation of the duty of care due to its directors, etc., the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the violation of laws and regulations, even if directors, etc.
Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the stated amount in the above claim to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. 1) According to Article 382(2) of the Commercial Act and Article 681 of the Civil Act, directors are performing their duties with the care of a good manager.