1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a trustee in bankruptcy appointed by the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 2013Hahap139 on September 26, 2013 by the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “A”).

C is a person who served as a representative director of A from November 26, 1999 to April 6, 2007, and the defendant is a person who has a private interest with C.

B. C: (a) on September 22, 2008, on September 22, 2008, registered the transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on August 4, 2008, with respect to multi-household housing of five floors in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Council (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “First Disposition”). (c)

On November 5, 2010, A filed a lawsuit claiming damages amounting to KRW 28.6 billion against C by neglecting his/her duties, by claiming that C incurred damages equivalent to KRW 28.6 billion due to nonperformance of obligations or illegal acts (the partial claim) by neglecting his/her duties, such as lending loans exceeding the lending limit by the president of the Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap13439, and C, in violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, by failing to secure sufficient security while lending loans exceeding the lending limit by the same person L and D Co., Ltd.

On December 6, 2011, the foregoing court rendered a judgment to fully accept A’s claim by limiting C’s responsibility to KRW 8 billion, while recognizing that C was negligent in performing his/her duties as the representative director, only for loans to D Co., Ltd. (a loan in violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act; hereinafter “the instant illegal loan”) and thereby causing damage to D. The Seoul High Court appealed as 2012Na12728, but was sentenced to the same purport on June 14, 2013.

(However, C’s liability was limited to KRW 6 billion, and C changed to the same purport of the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that the existence of retirement allowance claims asserted as automatic claims was denied, and the scope of res judicata has changed due to the rejection of the defense). CA.