Illegal acts and liability of the representative director of the company

If the representative director of a company causes damage to a third party due to an illegal act in the course of business execution, the representative director shall be jointly and severally liable with the company, and such an illegal act shall also be constituted when there is an intention

Article 210 of the Commercial Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

[Defendant-Appellant] Jinyang et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2217 decided May 1, 1979

Supreme Court Decision 78Da389 Decided June 27, 1978

The defendants' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, as the plaintiff alleged in the court of first instance that the plaintiff had purchased and possessed 17 items (one thousand items, five hundred items, and 17 items were corrected before the complaint statement) that the plaintiff had purchased and possessed 1,500,000 won for the plaintiff, but the court of second instance determined four items (TVs, one cooling machine, one copy machine, and two different types (Korean, English) among them and purchased them at 1,50,000 won, and the court below accepted them as it was. However, in light of the records and reasons in the original judgment, the plaintiff asserted the original incorrect argument and confirmed that the plaintiff had corrected and verified it at the court of first instance, and thus, the court below recognized that the plaintiff had purchased the items of the above amount and the goods of the 4 items as the above amount were legitimate, and the court below did not err in finding any inconsistency before or after the preparation.

The issue is groundless.

2. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, the court below determined that the non-party, who was a party to a loan transaction of the previous funds from the non-party on July 7, 1976, was the representative director of the defendant company since May 7, 1976 (the resignation registration was retired on July 20, 76) and concluded a contract between the non-party and the non-party on the acquisition of all rights and fixtures of the defendant company's office, which were leased by the non-party company from the non-party 1 to the non-party 21 of the same month, to take over all of the rights and equipment of the defendant company's office which were leased by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1,50,000 won, and that the above contract contains four items of the defendant company's office building and equipment in the above office, which were the non-party 1's unlawful possession of the defendant's office building and equipment, and rejected the plaintiff's removal from the office's office's official seal on July 20, 297, 197.

The issue is that it is not possible to employ a legitimate evidence preparation and fact-finding by free evidences belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court.

3. The court below acknowledged that the defendant 2, the representative director of the defendant company, committed a tort in the course of performing his duties by ordering the lessor to leave the office of lease of the defendant company, and caused the plaintiff to illegally remove the main items owned by the plaintiff and make it impossible to recover the plaintiff's claim, thereby causing a loss equivalent to the market price of the goods, and held that the defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable with the company under Articles 389 (3) and 210 of the Commercial Act. However, if the representative director of the company caused a loss to another person due to the tort in the course of performing his duties, the representative director is jointly and severally liable with the company, and the tort is established in addition to the intentional act, and the court below is justified in holding that the defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable with the company under the above provisions as to the above recognized facts, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal theory.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Do-ho (Presiding Justice)