Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Nam-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

April 15, 2009

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Gahap23648 Decided October 9, 2008

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to pay is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 190 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 29, 2000 to May 8, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into four equal parts, three equal parts, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively, and the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 70 million and 5% per annum from January 19, 2000 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the first instance court did not distinguish by damage claim, but claimed KRW 700 million as part of the total amount of damages. The court classified by damages claim each of the damages claim of this case as part of the damages amount relating to the company bonds of this case, and specified as part of the damages amount relating to the company bonds of this case of KRW 260 million as part of the damages amount relating to the company bonds of this case of this case No. 2766 as part of the damages amount relating to the company bonds of this case).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from January 19, 200 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Defendant: The part against the Defendant among the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff (the Korea Investment Trust Company) is an investment trust company that has invested the trust property in a specific securities, such as corporate bonds, in the old Securities Investment Trust Business Act (amended by Act No. 558 of Sep. 16, 1998, which was finally repealed by Act No. 6987 of Oct. 4, 2003) and a selling company, which is a truster company and has kept the funds collected from investors (beneficiary) in trust.

(2) On April 1, 1981, the defendant joined the non-party 1 corporation and promoted to the director general on February 1, 1994. On January 1, 1999, the defendant was promoted to the director who is an executive officer (non-registration) and worked in the construction accounting division of the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter "○○") by December 27, 2000.

(b) Disclosure of false financial statements based on window dressing accounts;

(1) In collusion with the chairperson, non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 5, the managing director of the accounting headquarters, non-party 5, the head of the trade accounting team, etc. in sequence, from January 1, 1999 to February 31, 199, the defendant prepared the financial statements of ○○'s 35 (1998 fiscal year from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 198) during the period from January 1, 199. The ○○'s internal settlement of accounts led to 197 fiscal year after the 1997 fiscal year and continuously failed to meet the financial structure and management performance. The defendant, non-party 2, and 3 directed the non-party 4 to adjust the ratio of ○○'s debt to less than 50%, and to prepare the financial statements to the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the non-party 8 of the domestic construction team to prepare the following direction.

(A) With respect to the domestic construction sector, a false increase of construction turnovers, the current net income on the income statement by falsely increasing the construction loss reserve and sales cost incurred at the construction site, by falsely reducing the sales claim and other assets through adjustment of the accounts, etc., and by falsely reducing or increasing the assets, liabilities, liabilities, capital and net income through adjustment of the accounts, etc., the assets in the balance sheet are falsely increased to KRW 351.5 billion, and the liabilities are falsely decreased to KRW 28 billion, the liabilities are falsely decreased to KRW 639.5 billion (the current net income, KRW 184 billion, earned surplus, KRW 45.5 billion), the liabilities are falsely increased to KRW 639.5 billion (the current net income, KRW 1,202 billion, KRW 47.1 billion per month, KRW 7.28 billion per month, KRW 78 billion per month, and KRW 29.5 billion per month, the liabilities are falsely increased to KRW 78 billion (the net income, KRW 28.5 billion per month, per month).

(B) With respect to overseas construction sector, in the course of adding up the false financial statements by country as if the Corporation did not carry out overseas construction work, false increase of net income on the income statement, false increase of sales claims and other assets on the basis of revenue and loss statement, false decrease of liabilities including purchase obligations, concealment of processed assets and reduction of debt ratio by offsetting and disposing of some of the processed assets and liabilities, and increase of foreign business conversion units, which are items of capital adjustment, while falsely decreasing or increasing assets, liabilities, capital and net income by means of omitting exchange rate loss on the purchased liabilities removed at the time of offsetting, false increase of 1.4.7 billion won in assets on the balance sheet, liabilities decreased by 1.479 billion won in liabilities, 1.6 billion won in total, 2.4 billion won in total, 92 billion won in total, 1.6 billion won in total, 9.7 billion won in total, 9.7 billion won in total, 1.9 billion won in total, 1.6 billion won in total, 9.7 billion won in net earnings and net earnings per increase by 9.8 billion won in total.

(C) As a result, ○○’s assets included a false financial statement of KRW 25.9 billion, the liabilities of KRW 36.26.9 billion, and the capital amount of KRW 10.307.4 billion (the net loss of the current year after including the former profit and loss amount is KRW 12.98 billion) but the total assets amount of KRW 775 billion were falsely increased, and the total liabilities decreased by KRW 13.423.6 billion in the Financial Supervisory Service (including the former profit and loss amount of KRW 12.1,986 billion), which is merely a false financial statement of KRW 26.77,34.5 billion in the assets amount of KRW 22.8 billion in the assets amount of KRW 98.8 billion in the account amount of KRW 198.5 billion in the total capital amount (including the former profit and loss amount of KRW 12.8 billion in the net profit and loss amount of KRW 18.5 billion in the account amount of KRW 98.28 billion in the account amount of KRW 98.5 billion in the account amount of capital amount.8 billion.

(2) After that, on February 5, 199, ○○ held a meeting of the board of directors which is the purpose of approval of the financial statements and business reports that have been settled off as above, and passed a resolution. △△ Accounting Firm conducted an accounting audit of the above financial statements from February 199 to March 13 of the same year, and on March 13, 1999, prepared an audit report stating the opinion that the above financial statements properly indicate the financial status as of December 31, 1998, management performance of the pertinent fiscal year, changes in earned surplus, and cash flow in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, and submitted it to the shareholders’ general meeting and the board of directors of ○○○○○. After that, on March 20, 199, after obtaining approval of the ordinary shareholders’ general meeting, it completed the procedure of disclosure, such as making the above financial statements public notice on the △△ Accounting Firm and △△ City’s financial statements on March 22, 1999.

C. Purchase of corporate bonds issued by the Plaintiff ○○

On April 30, 199, the Plaintiff purchased 275,000,000 non-guaranteed corporate bonds issued by ○○○ on April 28, 199 (hereinafter “instant corporate bonds”) at KRW 121.14 billion, and held non-guaranteed corporate bonds at KRW 276 on May 28, 199 (hereinafter “the non-guaranteed corporate bonds at KRW 276”) at KRW 22.6 billion and included them in the trust property operated by the Plaintiff as a truster company and a selling company.

(d) Measures to postpone redemption of the provisions of the former Act and the beneficiary certificates incorporated into each of the instant corporate bonds;

(1) Provisions and amendment history relating to the old law

(A) A truster company under the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act (amended by Act No. 558 of Sep. 16, 1998; hereinafter the “former Act”) is an operator of a securities investment trust. (1) The former Act provides that with respect to the method of redemption of beneficiary certificates, a truster company or dealer which has received a claim from a beneficiary for redemption shall pay in cash the redemption price within 15 days at the latest from the date of the date of the claim for redemption; and at this time, the truster company or dealer which received a claim for redemption from the beneficiary shall be able to obtain gains from changes in the base price if it complies with the claim for redemption (Article 7(1), 2, (4), and 30 of the former Act). (2) With respect to the method of determining redemption price, the base price of beneficiary certificates, which serves as the basis for determining redemption price, was calculated by dividing the total amount of assets appropriated in the trust account book as of the date preceding the date of public announcement by the total number of units of beneficiary certificates as of the public announcement or posting period (Article 29(4(5) of the former Enforcement Decree).

(B) After that, the former Act was amended by Act No. 558 of September 16, 1998 (hereinafter “the amended Act”), the provisions of Article 30 of the former Act, which had been enacted so that the truster or distributor may respond to the redemption of his own property, shall be deleted, and the truster who shall comply with the redemption shall comply with only with the cash created by the partial termination of the trust (such as cash or cash created by disposing of securities held in the trust property) (Article 7(5) of the amended Act), and the standard price of beneficiary certificates shall be evaluated as market price in determining the redemption price (Article 7(5) of the former Act), and accordingly, the book was also changed from the method of appraisal to the method of market price assessment (Article 29(2) of the amended Act, Article 14(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Act).

(C) However, the main text of Article 2 of the Addenda to the above Amendment applies to the redemption of beneficiary certificates issued pursuant to the terms and conditions of trust which were first enacted or amended after the enforcement of this Act. However, with respect to the redemption of beneficiary certificates to trust companies at the time of the enforcement of the above Act, the amended provisions apply to the date prescribed by the Presidential Decree within one year from the enforcement date of the Act (Article 2 of the Addenda to the Securities Investment Trust Business Act (Article 16554, Sept. 16, 199) (Article 165 of the Regulations on the Application Date of the Rules on Beneficiary Certificates in Article 2 of the Addenda to the Securities Investment Trust Business Act (Presidential Decree No. 16554, Sept. 15, 199).

(2) Implementation of measures to postpone the redemption of ○○ bonds

(A) However, since around 1999, ○○○ Group’s financial situation rapidly aggravated and investors are unstable about the possibility of recovering ○○ Group’s claims (hereinafter “○○○ Bonds”) among themselves. From July 23, 1999, the financial market unstable, such as the rapid increase in redemption of relevant investment trust products, and the investment trust association and the Korea Securities Dealers Association filed an application for approval of postponement of redemption including the redemption measures as follows with respect to the beneficiary certificates of an investment trust for which ○○ Bonds were incorporated into the Financial Supervisory Commission on August 12, 1999 in order to prevent liquidity crisis due to large redemption requests and confusion in the financial market. On the same day, the Financial Supervisory Commission approved the postponement of redemption (hereinafter “the postponement of redemption measures”) from August 13, 1999 to enforce the said postponement measures.

(B) The major contents of measures to postpone redemption on August 12, 199 shall be (1) payment in cash at the time of an investor's request for redemption of beneficiary certificates in proportion to the incorporation ratio of funds into ○○○○ bonds; (2) payment postponement shall be limited to guaranteed corporate bonds and unguaranteed corporate bills (CP) out of ○○ bonds, and exclusion of guaranteed corporate bonds or unguaranteed corporate bills (CP) from the subject of postponement of redemption. (3) Payment deferment method and amount of securities held by financial institutions, individuals and general corporations from the date of redemption to the date of settlement of accounts at 0.0% of the final settlement of accounts from August 13, 1999 to the date of settlement of accounts at 0.0% of the value of securities held by the financial institutions, etc. (if possible, from the date of settlement of accounts at 0.0% of the final settlement of accounts after July 1, 200 to the date of settlement of accounts; (4) Payment deferment shall be made from the date of settlement of accounts at 10.0% of the final settlement of accounts; and

E. The plaintiff's redemption and sale of each corporate bond of this case

(1) Of each of the corporate bonds of this case purchased and incorporated as a truster company under the former Act, the amount owned by the financial institution and the ratio owned by an individual are as indicated below in the column of “amount held by each investor” in the table of “amount held by each investor”. On August 12, 1999, for individuals holding beneficiary certificates included in each of the bonds of this case following the disposition of postponement of redemption on August 12, 1999, the Plaintiff made a repurchase (re-purchase) with proprietary property equivalent to 50%, 80%, and 95% of the base price for each of the bonds of this case at the time of request for repurchase, and as seen below, sold to the Korea Asset Management Corporation ("Korea Asset Management Corporation") at the estimated price (the title at that time). The beneficiary certificates corresponding to the ratio of each corporate bond of this case held by the financial institution was sold to the Korea Asset Management Corporation as estimated price and paid the purchase price to the financial institution.

본문내 포함된 표 회사채명 보유액(액면) 투자자별 보유금액(비율) 개인보유금액 개인보유비율 기관보유금액 기관보유비율 제275회 121,140,000,000원 85,388,489,305원 70.5% 35,751,510,695원 29.5% 제276회 222,609,100,000원 143,330,022,225원 64.4% 79,279,077,775원 35.6% 합계 343,749,100,000원 228,718,511,530원 ？ 115,030,588,470원 ？

(2) On the other hand, on January 29, 200, the Plaintiff purchased non-guaranteed and non-guaranteed bonds of ○○ Group (CP), among trust property, as proprietary property, and transferred at the estimated price to the Korea Asset Management Corporation. The transfer value was set at 18% of the face value of the claim in the case of each corporate bonds of this case, and thereafter the Plaintiff and the Korea Asset Management Corporation agreed to the settlement price of the estimated price on July 14, 200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including the serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Whether it conflicts with res judicata

The defendant asserts that "as to the window dressing accounting of this case, the plaintiff had already filed a claim for damages against the defendant against Seoul Southern District Court 2002Gahap74980, which held the defendant liable for tort pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Code, and the lawsuit of this case was filed with the same content as the defendant in the previous lawsuit, and thus res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit is effective."

However, the instant lawsuit is a cause of claim seeking damages pursuant to Articles 401-2 and 401 of the Commercial Act. As such, the prior suit seeking damages pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act is different from the prior suit seeking damages, and the res judicata effect of the prior suit does not affect the instant lawsuit.

B. Whether it constitutes abuse of the right of lawsuit or violation of the good faith principle

The defendant asserts that "self-reliance is merely a subordinate officer in receipt of the instructions from the upper part, and that it constitutes an abuse of the right of lawsuit or a violation of the good faith principle, and thus, the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful."

However, the above assertion alone does not constitute an abuse of the right of lawsuit or a violation of the good faith principle.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The defendant's neglect of duty

(1) The Defendant, who was a non-listed director in charge of the construction accounting division of ○○○○, was obligated to accurately indicate the financial status and profit and loss status of ○○ as of the closing date in accordance with the corporate accounting standards at the time of preparing the financial statements for the fiscal year 1998, was actively involved in preparing and publicly announcing the financial statements for the fiscal year 1998 in collusion with Nonparty 2, etc. in order to smoothly borrow ○○ credit funds

(2) The defendant constitutes "a person who directly performs affairs under the name of a director" under Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act or "a person who directly performs affairs under the name of a director" under Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act or "a person who performs affairs of a company by using a name which is recognized as having authority to perform affairs of an honorary chairperson, president, vice president, managing director, managing director, director, director, or any other company," and as such, he/she has neglected his/her duties due to bad faith or gross negligence, he/she shall compensate for damages

(3) The defendant asserts that "the de facto director stipulated in Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act refers to a person who is not a major shareholder or a person who is not a legal director such as the head of the Planning and Coordination Office, but has a strong influence over the major business of the company above the legal director, and thus the defendant does not constitute

However, the legislative intent of Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act is to strengthen the liability of a person who actually performs the business of a company by giving instructions to a director other than a director in law or by using a name which is recognizable as having the authority to execute the business of a company such as a director or a name which is recognizable as having the authority to execute the business of a director, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to interpret that such director must have a limited influence on the company, and it is reasonable to interpret that the above director is a director who actually performs the business of a director in charge

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not correct on a different premise.

B. The proximate causal relationship between the window dressing account and the purchase of each of the instant bonds

○○○○’s 198 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s decentralization between the Plaintiff’s purchase of corporate bonds of this case, and ① Article 470(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “total amount of bonds shall not exceed four times the net asset value existing on the final balance sheet.” As seen earlier, ○○○’s 198 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s 200 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s 200 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 200 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s 9 fiscal year’s 198 fiscal year’s 3 fiscal year’s 200 fiscal year’s 9 financial statements.

C. Difference between the Plaintiff’s performance of the duty to repurchase proprietary property and the damages

(1) A securities investment trust means that a truster, who imports funds, etc. from many unspecified persons for the purpose of investing in securities, has the trustee invest and operate such trust property in a specific securities in accordance with the instructions of the truster in question, and has the trustee acquire the right to benefit therefrom by dividing it (Article 2(1) of the former Act), and a truster company is a person who engages in business of becoming a truster of such securities investment trust (Article 2(3) of the former Act). Meanwhile, a beneficiary who is the holder of beneficiary certificates, in principle, claims redemption to a truster company, who is the issuer of beneficiary certificates, but if the beneficiary certificates are purchased from the selling company, it must claim redemption to the selling company, and the truster company or selling company which has received the claim for redemption shall repurchase the beneficiary certificates within 15 days from the date of receiving the claim for redemption (Article 7 of the former Act), and the truster company may repurchase the beneficiary certificates with its own property (Article 30 of the former Act).

(2) On the other hand, while the former Act intends to repurchase the proprietary property of a truster company or selling company in a usual way of repurchase, a person who is obliged to comply with the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of this Article shall repurchase at the latest within 15 days from the date of receiving a request for repurchase: Provided, That where there is a natural disaster, natural disaster, closing, closing, closing, or closing of a securities market, or any other unavoidable reason, the repurchase may be postponed upon approval by the Financial Supervisory Commission, and there is an inevitable reason, the postponement of redemption is recognized. Article 23(2) of the former Act and Article 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that where a large amount of claims for redemption of beneficiary certificates have occurred and it is impossible to repurchase them with the inherent property of a truster company or selling company, the truster company or selling company shall comply with redemption upon partial termination of the trust.

(3) As such, the obligation to repurchase by the truster company or selling company recognized by the former Act refers to the repurchase of beneficiary certificates with its own property in principle. On the other hand, in light of the fact that there are unavoidable reasons, such as a large-scale claim for repurchase of beneficiary certificates, such obligation to repurchase may not be deemed to go against the basic principles of the investment trust, such as performance distribution principle, beneficiary equality principle, and limited liability principle. However, where the obligation to repurchase its own property may be modified or modified, the reason for amending the obligation to repurchase its own property is “where it is impossible for the truster company or selling company to repurchase its own property due to large-scale claim for redemption of beneficiary certificates, it is difficult to form the market price of beneficiary certificates due to natural disasters, terrestrial disasters, securities markets, closing, suspending, or closing, or any other unavoidable reason, or where the account book that is treated as the market price is unknown or as the market price is treated as a result of serious damage to the beneficiary equality or beneficiary equality.”

(4) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in this case, ① ○○ bonds included in financial instruments operated by a domestic financial institution at the time of the postponement of redemption on August 12, 1999, including 27 trillion won, and the average incorporation ratio by investment trust as 18 trillion won has been 7.5%, and ○○○○ book value was considerably different from the adequate net asset value of investment trust assets due to the 19th appraisal of the securities investment trust (○○○ securities investment trust). Under such circumstances, if the redemption of investment trust products including ○○ bonds is allowed without limitation, it would cause losses to the remaining investors after the repurchase price of 199. In this case, most trust companies would have no choice but to enter into the market price of the new securities investment trust at the time of the postponement of redemption on the 19th anniversary of the base price of the new securities investment trust, which would have been incorporated into the market price of the new securities investment trust by the new securities investment trust, and there was no possibility that the new securities market price would have been calculated by the new financial market price of bonds.

(5) Therefore, the Plaintiff, as amended and amended in the disposition of postponement of redemption on August 12, 199, bears only the obligation to settle the redemption price based on the market price at the time when the market price for each of the instant bonds can be calculated with respect to the beneficiary certificates incorporated into each of the instant bonds held by financial institutions. However, as to the beneficiary certificates incorporated into each of the instant bonds held by individuals, the Plaintiff was liable to settle the redemption price based on its own property within the scope of differential payment at the time of request for redemption.

(6) Ultimately, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant bonds issued by ○○○○’s financial statements for the fiscal year of 1998 with belief that the financial statements were genuine and that the window dressing accounting facts were faced with the collapse risk of the domestic financial market, and it was inevitable to obtain approval for postponement of redemption and bear the duty of redemption corrected and modified as above as a truster company of the beneficiary certificates incorporated into each of the instant bonds. Since then, due to the insolvency of ○○○ Group, the Plaintiff sold each of the instant bonds incorporated into its trust property according to the estimated market price at the estimated price to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, thereby incurring considerable loss on the difference.

(7) If so, there is a considerable causal relationship between the Defendant’s act of neglect of duties related to the Defendant’s settlement of accounts and the Plaintiff’s damages incurred as a result of the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the instant corporate bonds and performance of redemption obligations with inherent property under the former Act after incorporation of beneficiary certificates

(d) Whether extinctive prescription expires;

The Defendant’s claim for damages against a third party under Articles 401-2 and 401 of the Commercial Act constitutes tort liability, and the prescription expires after the lapse of three years from the date on which damage or perpetrator becomes aware. However, on October 27, 1999, an article was reported that the asset value of an affiliated company of ○○ Group differs above 30 trillion won on the asset value on the account book. The government, around November 4, 1999, issued and announced the comprehensive measures for stabilization of the financial market related to ○○ Group’s corporate improvement project at around November 4, 199, upon disclosing “the current status of promoting ○○ Group’s work and its future plan” to the press, each of the domestic newspapers and broadcasting companies immediately filed a claim for damages after the lapse of 190,000 won on or around October 19, 199, and the Plaintiff’s claim for damages was finalized on or around October 19, 197.”

However, considering that the liability of a director for damages against a third party under Article 401 of the Commercial Act is a special liability recognized by the Commercial Act to protect the third party, it is reasonable to deem that Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which provides for the short-term extinctive prescription of general tort liability, is not applicable, and unless otherwise separately provided, the extinctive prescription period of general claim is ten years pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6579, Jan. 18, 2008). Thus, the defendant's defense is not correct without need to further determine.

4. Scope of damages.

A. Calculation of damages

The amount of damages incurred from the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the corporate bonds of this case with the Defendant’s trust in financial statements for the division accounting of this case is the difference between the amount calculated by deducting the settlement amount (estimated amount) that the Korea Asset Management Corporation paid to the Plaintiff by multiplying the settlement rate pursuant to the agreement with the Plaintiff by the face value of each of the corporate bonds of this case, from the amount of the amount of the Plaintiff’s redemption of the share included in each of the securities investment trust among the beneficiaries of the securities investment trust, in accordance with the settlement rate set forth in the measures for deferment of redemption as of August 12, 199.

As to the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff in the course of performing the obligation to repurchase each of the corporate bonds of this case owned by individual investors, first of all, the fact that the Plaintiff performed the obligation to repurchase to individual investors and paid the redemption price equivalent to 50%, 80%, and 95% of the face value of each of the bonds of this case as the standard value is not clearly disputed by the Defendant. Thus, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the differential redemption price paid by the Plaintiff while performing the obligation to repurchase with proprietary property to individual beneficiaries in relation to the redemption of each of the bonds of this case is an amount calculated by multiplying the payment rate applied differently at the time of the request for repurchase based on the face value of each of the bonds stated in the "Redemption claim amount" column as shown in the attached Form 3, the settlement amount of each of the corporate bonds of this case received by the Plaintiff is an amount calculated by multiplying the above 60% of the purchase price of the bonds of this case by the 180% of the purchase price of each of the above bonds of this case 7080%.

B. Limitation on liability

According to the evidence mentioned above, since January 198, when the company's financial status has deteriorated rapidly as a result of the so-called IMF crisis, it was acknowledged that since January 1998, the company's window dressing accounting had reached a situation where it was difficult to believe financial statements, not only public secrets among financial experts, but also that contents have been reported several times, and that ○○ Group's corporate bonds were issued at the time of purchase of each of the bonds of this case, the rate of short-term loans and total loans is considerably high, and that there was a possibility that it would become non-performing loans due to an absolute amount of payment guarantee, and that there was a possibility that the plaintiff would become non-performing loans. According to the financial statements of this case of 198 year, according to the financial statements of this case as the basis for the purchase of each of the bonds of this case and the incorporation of trust assets, the plaintiff has already been settled in and of itself, and in this situation, without sufficient and thorough investigation, the plaintiff erred in the misapprehension of each of the financial statements of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's negligence and the defendant's non-registered director on January 1, 199; the defendant's position and the specific attitude of the defendant's execution of duties; the circumstances and degree of involvement in the above window dressing accounting; the company's executive officer's excessive responsibility can undermine the national economy's competitiveness by suppressing active management and corporate activities; and the defendant decided to pay the plaintiff 124,616,438 won as deposit with the court on September 20, 207; the defendant paid the plaintiff 124,616,438 won as deposit; and the plaintiff received the above deposit and interest 125,101,247 won as trust; the defendant's chairperson of ○ Group and non-party 2, or any other director's liability; and the defendant's compensation for damages related to the company bond of this case should not be limited to 200 billion won as compensation for damages related to the company bond of this case; and the defendant's compensation for damages related to the company bond of this case 2007 billion won.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of damages of KRW 70 million per annum from the purchase of corporate bonds of this case 275 and damages of KRW 120 million per annum from the purchase of corporate bonds of this case 276 and damages of KRW 190 million per annum from the date on which the plaintiff transferred each of the bonds of this case to the Korea Asset Management Corporation with the amount of damages of KRW 120 million per annum from January 29, 2000 to May 8, 2009, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation of payment, and damages for delay calculated at a rate of KRW 20 million per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is just within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's remaining part of the appeal of this case shall be revoked within the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance and the decision of the court of first instance shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

[Attachment Form 1]

Judges Jo Hee-de (Presiding Judge)