beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. (1) The Defendants conspired to issue and receive false tax invoices even if there was no actual transaction of goods or services with the related company in the position of representative director, auditor, and outside director, and continued to receive loans from financial institutions as if there were profit-making companies such as window dressing accounting, etc., and distributed the above loans to the above related company as related companies. The Defendants continued to lend the corporate funds of G to the said related company or by issuing bills in the name of G, thereby resulting in the failure to pay for G.
(2) Although Defendant D and B’s wife M did not have worked as an employee of F, a related company of G or G, they received money from the said company as a monthly wage, Defendant D and Defendant B embezzled the corporate funds of G.
(3) Notwithstanding the absence of the intent or ability to pay the price for the goods at the time of the transaction with the Plaintiff, the Defendants deceiving the Plaintiff and acquired the price for the goods after being supplied with the goods.
(4) As above, the Defendants failed to fulfill their responsibilities and duties as directors and auditors under the Commercial Act, and due to their occupational breach of trust and embezzlement, G was treated in default, and the Plaintiff suffered losses from failure to receive reimbursement of KRW 51,920,909 on the inventory goods prepared to be supplied to G, and KRW 259,590,430, and KRW 51,920,909 on the inventory goods prepared to be supplied to G. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000 for Defendant C, and KRW 20,000,000 for Defendant D, as damages for delay.
B. The Defendants claiming for return of unjust enrichment subrogated to G are corporations G after issuing bills in the name of G based on the false tax invoice, and thereby receiving discount of bills or lending through related companies.