beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Defendant B, as the actual representative director of the Company E, filed a claim for compensation for damages under Article 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act and Article 401 of the Commercial Act with respect to Defendant B, ordered the F of the Accounting Personnel F to pay the Plaintiff a performance-based bonus of KRW 14 million from April 2013 to July 2013 in accordance with the Company’s internal regulations, and to reserve the same in the corporate account. Since the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount due to such unlawful execution of business, the Defendant B and E are jointly and severally liable for compensation for the damages pursuant to Articles 401 and 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act.
(2) As Defendant B borrowed from the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60 million on January 29, 2014, and KRW 16 million on February 3, 2014, Defendant B is liable to pay the amount.
B. Defendant B filed a claim for revocation of a fraudulent act against the Defendants.
Although the Plaintiff, as stated in the foregoing paragraph, bears a total amount of KRW 90 million against the Plaintiff, it constitutes a fraudulent act as it donated the instant apartment, the only real estate, to Defendant C, which is the wife of the instant apartment.
2. Determination on the claim for monetary payment against Defendant B
A. The liability for damages against a third party by a director under Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act is a requirement for the director to neglect his/her duties due to bad faith or gross negligence. Thus, the mere failure to perform the company's obligations due to ordinary transactions cannot be deemed to have neglected his/her duties in bad faith or gross negligence. On the other hand, it constitutes a case where the director neglected his/her duties in bad faith or gross negligence in a case where it is illegal as an act of violating the duty of care
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da47316), Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, Gap evidence 8, witness F's testimony and whole pleadings.