206Na112054 Compensation (e.g., compensation)

206Na112061 (Consolidation) Compensation for damages (a consolidation)

0000 Stock Company

Seoul Central District

Representative Director;

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

100

Seongdong-gu Seoul

Seoul Guro-gu

Attorney Lee Do-young

000 Construction Works

Manam-si Correction-gu

Representative;

Attorney Lee Do-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Gahap94787, 2006Gaz. 206 delivered on October 20, 2006

Article 2402 (Judgment of Consolidation)

May 11, 2007

June 29, 2007

1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won among the amount of the first instance court's award against Co-Defendant 00 of the first instance court and Co-Defendant 000 of the first instance court's award against each of the Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance court, and 550 million won per annum from February 16, 2006 to June 29, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Defendant 2 shall pay 310 million won among the amount of the first instance court's award against Co-Defendant 00 of the first instance court and Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance court's first instance court's award against each of the Co-Defendant 00 of the second instance court's 312 million won per annum from November 1, 2005 to June 29, 207; and 30% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeals against the defendants and the defendant 1's appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 are ten minutes and six of them are borne by the plaintiff, the remainder is borne by the defendant, and the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 are five minutes and four of them are borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the above defendant.

4. The portion of the monetary payment under paragraph 1 above may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as “Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial”) each

J. 1.866 billion won, and Defendant 2’s co-defendant 1, Defendant 1, and each of them 1.566 billion won in the first instance trial; and

The rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

The plaintiff paid the money (the plaintiff reduced the claim against the defendant 2 at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order to pay shall be taken.

(1) The defendant 1 and 1670 million won per co-defendant 1 of the first instance trial and each of them, and the plaintiff's objection thereto.

From the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of pronouncement of judgment of the first instance, 5% per annum and the next day.

C. The 20% interest per annum until the date of full payment; Defendant 2 shall be co-defendant 1 and Defendant 1 of the first instance trial.

The day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to each party of this case shall be 1.56 billion won, and the day after the day of complete payment.

up to twenty percent (20%) interest per annum.

Defendant 1: Revocation of the part against Defendant 1 in the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff corresponding to the revoked part.

The claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4-1 through 4, 10-1 through 6, 10-1 through 4, 7, 5-1, 2, 1 through 6, 5-1, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-1 through 6.

A. Co-defendant 1 of the first instance trial around January 1994, 1994, the Plaintiff Company ( from 000 to 16 April 1996).

Around April 2001, a director of the accounting division has been issued on the issuance of a credit card (hereinafter referred to as a "corporate card") issued by the Plaintiff as a corporate member on September 2002, 202, when the Plaintiff entered the company as a stock company, again 0000 corporation on June 24, 1998, and the trade name was changed to a stock company on March 28, 2001.

B. On September 4, 2003, Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial had Defendant 1 purchase an amount equivalent to KRW 110,000,000 for 10,000 for department stores by using the Plaintiff’s corporate card that he manages, and then deposited KRW 90,000 in his account after deducting the fee of KRW 10% from the above purchase amount (hereinafter “the above-mentioned form of transaction”) from the time of deposit (hereinafter “the above-mentioned form of transaction”).

22. Until December 22, 22, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, or Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 directly affixed a card using the Plaintiff’s various corporate cards, and the total amount of the settlement amount reaches KRW 13.72 billion. Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance court used the money deposited through the above card discount as the Plaintiff’s corporate card settlement price, his credit card settlement price, and horse racing fund.

C. On October 2004, Co-Defendant 1’s above carded act of Co-Defendant 1 of the court of first instance was discovered as a patrol officer. Since Co-Defendant 1 of the court of first instance was unable to prevent so-called return, the Plaintiff was 204.

10. The amount of credit card payments made between December 27, 200 and December 1, 2004 is 1.935 billion won. Of them, the card payments made to Defendant 2, Co-Defendant 3 and 4 of the first instance trial are 1.63 billion won (c. 1.63 billion won on expressway transit card), 5 billion won (department store) and 300 million won (main merchandise coupon) respectively (specific details refer to the details of card use; hereinafter referred to as "the card transaction in this case").

D. Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance court was sentenced to imprisonment of five years at the first instance court on March 10, 2005 due to the instant card transaction, etc. on May 11, 2005, and four years of imprisonment at the appellate court on May 11, 2005, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time (Seoul Central District Court 2004Da1347 and Seoul High Court 2005No598).

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that as the so-called --called ---called -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap's evidence 4-1 to 3, Eul's evidence 1-1 to 4, 6, 7, and Eul's evidence 3. (The defendant 1) from February 2003 to make it possible for the defendant 1 to normally use the credit card's credit business, overdue card payment business (the defendant 1's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's 1-1 to 1-4, 7, and 3)'s credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's 1-1 to 1-1's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit card's credit.

(4) The scale of transaction at which the number of co-defendant 1 and Defendant 1’s card is to be the amount of transaction from September 2003 to September 2004.

10,00 won or more of the above 10-year card transaction, and 13 billion won or more of the above 10-year card transaction to the above 10-year card transaction. According to the above 10-year card transaction statement of the 10-year card transaction, the plaintiff's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 4's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 4's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 0's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 4's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 4's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 5's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-defendant 1's co-indicted 2's co-indicted 1's non-2's non-indicted

9. From January 1 to October 12, 2004, the sum of KRW 1.86 billion ( = 1.935 million - KRW 70 million - five million - five million) is asserted that Defendant 1 was not involved in the above transaction once of October 12, 2004 with Defendant 2. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 7, and 3, Defendant 1 stated that Defendant 1 was in possession of the Plaintiff’s corporate card used in the above transaction at an investigative agency after the above transaction date, and that the investigative agency was excluded from the above transaction with Defendant 1 after the above transaction date, it can be acknowledged that the above facts were not found otherwise.

C. The occurrence of liability for damages and limitation of liability (1). Although there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 1 conspiredd to, or abetted to, the act in breach of trust through the discount on the corporate card of Codefendant 1 of the first instance trial, Defendant 1 committed an act in breach of trust against the Plaintiff by Codefendant 1 of the first instance trial, in full view of the above facts of recognition, Defendant 1 committed an act in breach of trust against the Plaintiff at the time when he first requested a discount on the corporate card from Codefendant 1 of the first instance trial for the first time, 350 times the number of card transactions until that time exceeds 10 billion won, and at the time of the act in violation of the card transaction of this case by Codefendant 1 of the first instance trial for Codefendant 1 of the first instance trial.

(3) It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s act of acquiring gift certificates, etc. using the Plaintiff’s corporate card was aiding and abetting the Defendant 1’s act of breach of trust by means of remitting the remaining amount of money from the cash acquired by disposing of it to Codefendant 1 of the first instance trial. Defendant 1 was presented with the Plaintiff’s corporate card at the first instance trial and the first transaction with the Defendant 1, or was subject to disposition without suspicion by the investigation agency. Thus, Defendant 1, as codefendant 1 of the first instance trial, was also liable for damages incurred by Defendant 1’s act of using the Plaintiff’s corporate card at the first instance trial’s new 00,000 won or 100,000 won, which was issued with the Plaintiff’s corporate card at the first instance trial. However, in full view, Defendant 1 was also liable for damages incurred by Defendant 1’s act of using the Plaintiff’s corporate card at the first instance trial’s new 100,000 won or 200,000 won.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 1, as the damages for illegal acts committed by Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial and each of the co-defendant 1 of the first instance trial, shall be KRW 740 million out of the amount of the first instance court’s award against Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial ( = KRW 1.866 billion in total, which was made through Defendant 1 among the card transaction of this case x 0 million) and KRW 186 million, which is the amount of the award of the first instance trial among them, KRW 186 million, which is the amount of the award of the first instance trial among them, 206.

2. From 16.16. to 206.10% per annum under the Civil Act until October 20, 2006, which is the date of the judgment of the first instance that the above defendant has a substantial dispute, 50 million won per annum under the Civil Act, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, and 55 million won per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings ( = 7.4 billion won - 180 million won per annum - 16 million won per annum from February 16, 2006, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of complaint of this case to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 29, 2007, which is the day of full payment, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 2

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although it is clear that Defendant 2 was an abnormal card use in light of the size of the transaction at the time of the instant card transaction, the Plaintiff neglected his duty to verify the identity at the time of credit card transaction in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Credit Finance Business Act and the terms and conditions of the credit card company’s member stores. As such, the Plaintiff is liable for damages equivalent to KRW 1.56 billion suffered by the Plaintiff from the relevant transaction during the instant card transaction.

I asserts that this case is.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following facts: Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 3, 5, 7-1 through 5, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 5-2, Eul evidence 2-1 through 5, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-1 through 3, Eul evidence 9-1 through 5, and Eul evidence 9-1 through 5.

(1) Article 1 of the corporate card terms and conditions of the foreign exchange card and the national card provides that "the corporate card user shall be an executive or employee who belongs to the member who receives the card from the member and uses the card. The member shall assume all the responsibility arising from the user's repayment of the price following the use of the card, and any other liability arising from the card." Article 2 provides that "the card which does not specify the user shall, upon receipt of the notice, enter the corporate name in the signature column and the user's name in the sales slip."

(2) Article 19(2) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that "The credit card merchant shall verify whether the credit card is being properly used by the principal whenever it makes a transaction by credit card."

(3) The credit card merchant agreement of Samsung Card Co., Ltd., Hyundai Card Co., Ltd., Korea Exchange Bank, Korean National Bank, and Non-Sch Card Co., Ltd. provides that "if the amount of the card used exceeds KRW 500,000,000, the card user's identification card should be confirmed by confirming the card user's identification card

(4) Defendant 2 generally submitted a copy of corporation’s business registration certificate, proxy certificate, and actual user’s identification card in the case of a large credit transaction by means of a corporate card. (5) around January 27, 2004, the vice governor of Defendant 2 asked Defendant 1 to respond to Defendant 1’s submission of the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, proxy certificate, and actual user’s identification card. After confirming that Defendant 1 delegated the right to purchase an expressway traffic card by using the Plaintiff’s corporate card, Defendant 1 requested Defendant 1 to prepare and request a letter of delegation on the part of Defendant 1. The vice governor of the first instance court prepared a copy of the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, Defendant 1’s proxy name and proxy certificate, Defendant 2’s proxy name and proxy certificate from Defendant 14, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s agent’s proxy name and proxy certificate from Defendant 2, and Defendant 1’s proxy name and proxy certificate from Defendant 14.

23. up to the day, Defendant 1 sold the expressway transit card in an amount of KRW 4.5 billion with the Plaintiff’s corporate card. Around that time, the head of the old Ri requested Defendant 1 to submit a power of attorney with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint affixed thereon. Accordingly, Defendant 1 entered the above contents from June 24, 2004, and submitted to the delegating column a power of attorney with the Plaintiff’s name plate and the Plaintiff’s trade name affixed to the returned site manager’s employee seal affixed at the construction site at the time of 000 days, and purchased the expressway transit card in an amount of KRW 2.1 billion in total with the Plaintiff’s corporate card from August 31, 2004.

(6) From September 1, 2004 to October 12, 2004, Defendant 2 confirmed the identification card that Defendant 1 was an officer or employee of the Plaintiff by using the Plaintiff’s corporate card, or did not receive from Defendant 1 the copy of the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, proxy certificate, and copy of Defendant 1, the actual user’s identification card.

C. According to the above facts, Defendant 2 is obligated to verify whether the Plaintiff’s corporate card is being properly used by the Plaintiff’s officers and employees at each time it makes the instant card transaction in accordance with Article 19(2) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act as a credit card merchant and the credit card merchant terms and conditions. In particular, if Defendant 1 purchases an expressway transit card in large amount using the Plaintiff’s various corporate cards, such as the card transaction in this case, he is obligated to verify whether the right to use the expressway was granted to Defendant 1, and if it is used by an agent, to verify whether the Plaintiff’s corporate card is an officer and employee, or if it is used by an agent, to verify whether the Plaintiff’s corporate card is being properly used by the Plaintiff’s officer and employee or agent, and to pay damages to the Plaintiff’s corporate card as well as the Plaintiff’s debt transaction in this case by negligence, and to pay damages to the Plaintiff 100,000 won to Defendant 1 and the Plaintiff’s joint account holder.

Defendant 2 asserted that Defendant 1 used the Plaintiff’s corporate card as an employee of the first instance court, who is the legitimate right to use the Plaintiff’s corporate card at each time of this case’s card transaction, and confirmed that Defendant 1 used the Plaintiff’s corporate card as an agent of the first instance court, who is the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s employee. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion on the sole basis of evidence No. 4-1, No. 5, No. 3-1, and No. 5-3, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 confirmed whether the Plaintiff’s corporate card was properly used by the officer or employee by verifying the identity card at the time of using the corporation card. However, Defendant 2’s assertion is not acceptable even if the Plaintiff’s corporate card was used by the method of using the Plaintiff’s corporate card No. 1, No. 4-2, and No. 8-1, No. 2, No. 5-2, and No. 8-1, No.

6. On October 24, 2000 won ( = 9.377 billion won) from around October 31, 2004 to around August 31, 2004, the name cards affixed by co-defendant 1 of the first instance court were the Plaintiff, and the name cards affixed by Co-defendant 1 of the first instance court were used at the construction site when the Plaintiff’s trade name was 00 days, and it is difficult to grasp the difference separately. ⑥ Defendant 2 sold the Highway traffic cards equivalent to KRW 7.74 billion from around October 2003 to around August 31, 2004 to the Plaintiff’s corporate card transaction through co-defendant 2 of the first instance court, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize that the Plaintiff’s co-defendant 2 was liable for the damages incurred by the Defendant Co-defendant 1 of the first instance court in light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff’s co-defendant 2 was entitled to limit the Plaintiff’s share of the expenses.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by applying each ratio of 310 million won among the 30,000,000,000 won of the monetary award of the first instance court against Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial ( = 1.56 billion won x 0.2) as damages for the co-defendant 1 of the first instance trial, and as requested by the Plaintiff, from November 1, 2005 to June 29, 2007, the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the date of the decision of the first instance, to Defendant 2’s objection, the amount of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 29, 207, and the amount of damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of each recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for each reason. Since part of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, it is unfair to accept part of the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and order the payment of each of the above amounts additionally recognized in the trial against the defendants. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the plaintiff's remaining appeal against the defendants and the appeal by the defendant 1 are dismissed for each reason, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Gyeong-chul

Kim Uniform-type

Judges Jind Crime