beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 450,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from August 29, 2018 to October 24, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
On July 2006, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for a loan (main claim) was delivered a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) issued by the Defendant from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) and lent KRW 450 million to the Defendant. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff interest only on a monthly basis until August 31, 2017, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said loan amounting to KRW 450 million and delay damages. Even if C borrowed the above money, at the time, as the largest shareholder of the Defendant and the registered director of the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to lend the above money under the name of preparing the Defendant’s lease deposit in substance while operating the Defendant, and the Plaintiff trusted the said money, and thus, the Defendant is liable for the act of expression C, a representative director, under Article 395 of the Commercial Act.
Judgment
The conclusion of the loan claim is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 450 million to the defendant around July 2006 on the basis of the following: Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 12, witness D's testimony, this court's E-cooperative, F Bank, and G Bank's each order to submit financial transaction information to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, it can be acknowledged that C was the Defendant’s representative director, and C borrowed KRW 450 million from the Plaintiff on July 2006 without fixing the due date, and that the Promissory Notes issued by the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff to guarantee the repayment of the Defendant’s obligation at the time, and that C paid monthly interest until August 31, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
The purpose of Article 395 of the Commercial Act concerning the liability of the apparent representative director is to determine the liability of the apparent representative director.