(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.22 2015나2017348

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.22 2015나2017348

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court's reasoning for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows: (a) part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited as "paragraph (2)"; and (b) as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant J, K, and L to "paragraph (3)" (Provided, That the remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance except the defendants shall be excluded); and (c) it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Part 5 of the 5th sentence of the first instance judgment "director" has been written by the following: "I use the name of director and actually perform the duties of director";

B. The part of “E, F, G, I, and J as each director,” in Part 8 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court, “E, F, G, I, and I, as each director, shall be determined by the Defendant J, using the name of director as follows, who actually takes charge of the duties of the director of the instant savings bank and is in accordance with Articles 401-2 and 399(1) of the Commercial Act.”

【In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant J did not assume the responsibility for damages as it was not a regular director of the instant savings bank. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff up to the trial alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant J was appointed as a director through a resolution of the general meeting of stockholders of the savings bank of this case and completed the registration thereof. However, the Plaintiff added the Plaintiff’s claim under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act due to the instant claim for damages against Defendant J during the trial. However, considering the overall purport of each of the entries and arguments as well as the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of serial numbers), Defendant J was a director between August 19, 2008 and January 13, 2011.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-상법 제399조 제1항

-상법 제401조의2

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.04.28 2015나36512

-서울고등법원 2016.06.02 2015나2042559

-서울고등법원 2019.11.22 2018나2042987

-대법원 2009. 11. 26. 선고 2009다39240 판결

-서울고등법원 2017.08.17 2016나2081544