AlleyB Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sinified, Attorney Maximum Intervention, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Nitex and one other (Law Firm Roice, Attorneys Jeon Man-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 30, 2014

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2012Gahap13239 Decided November 22, 2013

1. Of the judgment of the first instance on Defendant Neax Co., Ltd., the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the confirmation of non-existence below shall be revoked.

A. We affirm that the Plaintiff’s liability of KRW 428,769,596 under the contract for the supply of the e-shop system to Defendant Neasex Co., Ltd. and the liability of KRW 22,000,000 under the lease contract for the 4th floor of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted) from January 2, 2012 to May 2, 2012 does not exist.

B. Of the short-term loans listed in the [Attachment List] against Defendant Nevisex, the Plaintiff’s obligation exceeding KRW 20,072,132,400 out of the total amount of KRW 85,060,000 as well as the obligation listed in paragraphs 8 through 29 and KRW 20,072,00 in total of KRW 388,00,000 as well as the obligation listed in paragraphs 7 does not exist.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal against the defendant Neasex Co., Ltd. and the appeal against the defendant 2 (Counter-party 1) are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Neasex, the Plaintiff shall bear the remainder, the said Defendant shall bear the costs of appeal, and the costs of appeal incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 428,769,596 under the contract for the supply of the e-shop system of January 2, 2012 and debt of KRW 22,00,000 under the lease contract for the 4th floor of Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) from January 2, 2012 to May 2012, the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 22,00,000 does not exist. The Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 66,60,000 and KRW 18,40,000 among the short-term debt of KRW 18,40,000, KRW 78,132,400 among the debt of KRW 18,40,000, KRW 400, KRW 78,400, KRW 132,400 on the 4th floor of Gangdong-gu.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff (former Co., Ltd.) is a company with the purpose of advertising production and agency business, Internet and electronic commercial transaction related business, etc. The purpose of Defendant Nevisex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is to carry out business of manufacturing and maintaining computers, software production and maintenance business, telecommunications equipment installation and maintenance business, etc., and Defendant 2 was the representative director of the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff’s representative director from July 7, 201 to June 13, 2012.

B. Conclusion of a contract for SMT Mall Business

On May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff constituted a media distribution channel, K, Sc, Scas and Scastacom consortium. On May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff established a smart channel (i.e., media distribution channel (i., a mutual company prior to the alteration; hereinafter referred to as “ smart channel”) as an operating corporation, and on June 5, 2009, the company entered into a contract with the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation to operate the urban railroad shopping (e-hop) and operate the advertising business, etc. in some spaces of history and electric trains.

C. Conclusion of the Agreement dated April 22, 201 (Agreement No. 1 of this case)

1) On September 1, 2009, Lex and five other (hereinafter “Investors”) entered into an investment contract with the Plaintiff on investment of KRW 2.9 billion in relation to the SMR MMall business. In order to secure the said investment amount, the Plaintiff’s representative director, including Nonparty 3, was at the time of the Plaintiff’s establishment of a pledge on KRW 100 of the Plaintiff’s shares issued.

2) The investors made an investment of KRW 2.9 billion and did not recover the investment amount under the said investment contract. On April 22, 2011, in order to normalize the Plaintiff’s operation and recover the investment amount, Defendant 2 made the investors acquire all of the above shares to Nonparty 4, an agent of investors by exercising a neighboring pledge, and then Defendant 2 again acquired them. Defendant 2 made an additional agreement to pay KRW 45 million (one day’s agent Nonparty 4 and Defendant 2 to pay KRW 45 million until January 31, 2013 (Evidence 39) to the rest of the representative director by the agreement to pay KRW 3.7 billion from January 31, 201, and Defendant 200,000,000,000 from January 31, 2013, Defendant 2013 to pay KRW 3.77 billion to the investors in installments, and Defendant 2,700,000,000 from January 31, 2013>

3) On April 22, 2011, Defendant 2 prepared a promissory note of KRW 3.8 billion against Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5, an investor’s agent, as a security for the performance of the obligation to pay the price under the instant agreement. On April 21, 2011, Defendant 2 concluded a mortgage agreement with Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5 on April 22, 201 with respect to ○○○○○ △△△dong, Defendant 2’s ( Address 2 omitted) on April 22, 2011, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on May 2, 201 (the registration for change of the maximum debt amount as KRW 200,000,000) on July 26, 2011, Defendant 2 created a pledge on the entire shares of the Plaintiff on July 26, 2011.

D. Conclusion of the supply contract of e-shop system (the instant supply contract)

1) Around September 201, the Plaintiff was selected as a e-hop business owner’s official residence of smart channels. In order to build a system for the implementation of the SMMMG, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of hardware and software with the Defendant company at KRW 890,769,596, and for the supply of shopping mall development services (hereinafter “instant supply contract”). However, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the supply of the e-hop system (including value-added tax) with the aforementioned contract amount at two cases, and entered into the contract amount at KRW 462 million (including value-added tax), the contract period from September 25, 201 to December 31, 2011, and the contract amount at KRW 428,769,796 (including value-added tax) and the contract period from September 25, 2011 to December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

2) 피고 회사는 이 사건 공급계약에 따른 하드웨어, 소프트웨어 등을 납품하기 위해 2011. 11. 29. 주식회사 애니파인더(이하 ‘애니파인더’라 한다)와 계약금액 68,992,000원(부가가치세 포함), 계약기간 2011. 11. 29.부터 2012. 1. 31.까지로 정하여 e-shop 시스템 구축용역을 제공받는 계약을 체결하였고, 2011. 12. 15. 주식회사 노바네트웍스(이하 ‘노바네트웍스’라 한다)와 물품대금 156,195,875원(부가가치세 포함) 및 77,919,050원(부가가치세 포함, 을 제30호증의 1) 합계 234,114,925원(을 제30호증의 2)으로 정하여 e-shop 시스템 구축장비를 공급받는 계약을 체결하였다.

3) Meanwhile, on December 20, 201, the Defendant Company entered into an online conference service contract (i.e., an Internet conference service contract; hereinafter “IDC service contract”) with Aart Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AE”) (hereinafter “AE”) from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012; and (ii) monthly user fee of KRW 590,000,000.

4) On December 31, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 462 million to the Defendant according to the instant supply contract.

E. Conclusion of the Agreement dated June 13, 2012 (Agreement No. 2 of this case)

1) Defendant 2 issued convertible bonds under the name of the Defendant without the consent of investors in the amount of KRW 2.9 billion (which is indicated as a new subscription deposit in a financial statement) in which the investors invested in the Plaintiff, and later converted the convertible bonds into shares under the name of the Defendant (registration on January 10, 2012, and February 4, 2012). Defendant 2 was obligated to provide additional shares as additional collateral in accordance with the share transfer contract, but failed to comply therewith.

2) Accordingly, the investors determined that Defendant 2 cannot be entrusted with the management of the Plaintiff, and decided to take over the Plaintiff’s shares and management rights again from Defendant 2, and notified Defendant 2 of the termination of the instant first agreement and the repayment of debts on May 29, 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, Defendants, and investors terminated the instant first agreement on June 13, 2012, and Defendant 2 agreed that Defendant 2 should resign from the Plaintiff’s representative director, waive the Plaintiff’s management right, and transfer the Plaintiff’s entire shares issued (hereinafter “instant second agreement”). The main contents of the instant second agreement are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 제2조 합의사항 (2) 투자자들의 의무 내지 확약사항 1. 피고 2가 이 사건 합의서 제2조 제(3)항 제1호 내지 제3호를 위반함이 없이 이행하는 경우에 피고 2 소유의 남양주시 아파트에 설정된 근저당권의 채권최고액을 8억 원에서 2억 원으로 감액하되, 피고 회사의 연대보증책임은 본 합의서 제3조에 따른 부외부채 확인 기간인 피고 2의 대표이사 사임일로부터 1년 동안 계속 유지하기로 한다. 2. 피고 2가 이 사건 합의서 제2조 제(3)항 제1호 내지 제3호를 위반함이 없이 이행하는 경우에 투자자들 및 원고는 피고 2의 원고 대표이사 재임 및 경영기간 중의 피고 2 및 원고 경영진의 행위에 대하여 민·형사상의 책임을 묻지 않기로 한다. 5. 피고 2가 본 합의서 제2조 제(3)항 제1호 내지 제3호를 위반함이 없이 이행하는 경우에, 향후 본 합의서에 따라 투자자들이 취득하는 원고 발행 주식의 매각 시 그 매각대금 또는 e-shop 인터넷 쇼핑몰 구축비(8.9억) 정산과 동시에 투자자들 또는 원고가 피고 2에게 3억 원을 지급하기로 한다. 단, 그 매각대금이 35억 원 미만일 경우 투자자들의 투자원금 29억 원과 피고 2의 채권액(3억 원)을 안분하여 배분한다. 7. 피고 2가 본 합의서 제2조 제(3)항 제1호 내지 제3호를 위반함이 없이 이행하는 경우에, 본 합의서에 따라 투자자들이 취득하는 원고 주식이 롯데그룹 등 피고 2의 주선 하에 35억 원 이상으로 매각되는 경우에, 매각금액*{20+(매각금액-70억 원)*0.167}%를 매각 완료 시 피고 2에게 지급하여야 한다. 단, 35억 원 미만일 경우 투자자들의 투자원금 29억 원과 피고 2의 채권액을 안분하여 배분한다. 8. e-shop 인터넷 쇼핑몰 구축과 관련한 원고의 피고 회사에 대한 채무이행에 갈음하여, 원고는 가능한 신속히 정당한 거래내역을 파악한 이후에 피고의 ㈜노바네트웍스(145,845,425원), ㈜테라텍(88,269,500원), ㈜애니파인더(48,294,400원)에 대한 e-shop 인터넷 쇼핑몰 구축과 관련한 각 채무를 인수하기로 한다. 명확히 하기 위하여 각 채무인수계약을 체결한 경우 원고의 피고에 대한 위 채무는 소멸한다. (3) 피고 2의 의무 내지 확약사항 1. 이 사건 합의서 체결 즉시 피고 2 소유의 원고 발행 주식 전부(68만 주) 중 피고 2 명의로 되어 있는 100%를 투자자들 또는 투자자들이 지정하는 자에게 양도하고 해당 주권 실물을 교부함과 동시에 원고 주주명부에 주주로서 기재되도록 하여야 한다. 2. 이 사건 합의서 체결 즉시 대표이사를 포함한 등기임원 전원의 사임서(해당 개인 인감이 날인되고 해당 인감증명서가 유첨)를 징구하여 투자자들에게 제출하고, 즉시 사임등기가 되도록 협력한다. 3. 이 사건 합의서 체결 즉시 원고의 법인인감, 사용인감과 원고의 자금거래에 관련된 통장들, 거래용 도장, 공인인증서, OTP(카드) 등을 투자자들의 대리인 소외 4에게 교부하여야 한다. 4. 이 사건 합의서 체결 후 14일 이내에 원고의 경영현황표 등을 작성하여 투자자들의 대리인인 소외 4에게 교부하여야 하며, 원고의 전표, 계약서, 회계장부 등의 경우도 동일하다. (4) 피고 회사의 의무 내지 확인사항 1. 본 합의서에 따른 부외부채 채무를 연대 이행할 의무 2. 기타 본 합의에서 정한 사항 및 이를 위해 필요한 업무

3) By June 19, 2012, Defendant 2 performed all of the obligations under Article 2(3) of the instant Agreement.

F. Plaintiff’s balance sheet

1) Of the balance sheet account from January 1, 201 to June 30, 2012, the Plaintiff’s tax payable item shall be KRW 4.4 million per month as the amount payable to the Defendant company, and KRW 428,769,59,596, totaling KRW 450,769,596, and KRW 586,685,000 for short-term loans to the Defendant company, and KRW 586,685,00 for short-term loans to the Defendant company. Of the balance sheet account from January 1, 201 to June 30, 2012, the amount payable shall be KRW 7,190,000 per month as the amount payable to the representative director, and KRW 281,264,60,00 for electricity against Defendant 2.

2) From the above balance sheet, KRW 41,552,660 out of the items of short-term loans to the Defendant Company was written in error, and the actual short-term loans amounting to KRW 545,132,400 in total ( KRW 586,685,00 in - KRW 41,552,660 in total) as shown in the separate sheet.

[Ground for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 24, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 15, 17, 20 through 25, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 47, 55 through 58, 61 through 69, 86, 88 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), non-party 6's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant supply contract was concluded by Defendant 2, who concurrently served as the representative director of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, which constitutes a self-trade of directors requiring the approval of the board of directors under Article 398 of the Commercial Act, and the instant supply contract was not approved by the board of directors. Therefore, the instant supply contract is null and void.

2) 원고가 피고 회사를 거치지 않고 직접 애니파인더와 노바네트웍스 등에 발주를 하였다면 비용이 훨씬 적게 들었을 것임에도 불구하고 피고 2는 오로지 자신 또는 자신이 경영하던 피고 회사의 이익을 도모할 목적으로 우선 피고 회사에 이를 발주한 후 피고 회사가 애니파인더와 노바네트웍스에 다시 발주하는 형태로 실제 소요된 비용보다 과다하게 계약금액을 책정하여 이 사건 공급계약을 체결하였고, 피고 2 자신이 피고 회사의 대표이사인 이상 피고 회사 역시 그 사실을 알고 있었다고 보아야 하므로 결국 이 사건 공급계약은 피고 2의 대표권 남용에 의한 것으로 원고와의 관계에서 무효이다.

3) Even if the instant supply contract does not become null and void, the Defendant Company did not supply it to the Plaintiff, and did not change the name of the contractor from the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff, even though the search engine and server security REDWL products, and the certificate of license for the DB DB products was essential for the normal operation of the Internet shopping mall. Thus, the Defendant Company asserted that the Defendant Company fulfilled all the obligations under the instant supply contract even though the provision of performance under the instant supply contract cannot be deemed a lawful provision of payment. Thus, the Plaintiff may be deemed as a declaration of intention to refuse the performance of the obligations under the instant supply contract, and thus, the Plaintiff rescinded the instant supply contract by serving the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on April 24, 2013.

4) Therefore, there is no debt of KRW 428,769,596 to the Defendant Company according to the supply contract of this case as of January 2, 2012. Since the Defendant Company is dissatisfied with this, there is a benefit of confirmation. The Plaintiff has a right to recover unjust enrichment or cancellation of contract, and pursuant to the supply contract of this case, 462 million won paid to the Defendant Company was entitled to refund from the Defendant Company around December 31, 201, and the Plaintiff offsets the debt of KRW 22,00,00 from the debt of KRW 2,00,00,000,000 from the debt of KRW 2,22,00,000,000 from the debt of KRW 60,000 to the Defendant Company. Thus, there is a benefit of confirmation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 41,52,660,000 from the short-term loan of KRW 4,500,000,000 from the above 274,20000.

5) 한편, 피고 회사는 원고에 대한 대여금 채권 중 284,114,925원을 노바네트웍스에, 48,294,000원을 애니파인더에 각 양도하였으므로, 결국 원고의 피고 회사에 대한 별지 목록 기재 단기차입금채무는 존재하지 아니함에도, 피고 회사가 이에 대하여 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 이를 다투므로, 그 확인의 이익이 있는바, 별지 목록 기재 단기차입금채무 중 위 78,132,400원을 초과하는 채무의 부존재확인을 구한다.

B. Determination as to whether the instant supply contract is invalid due to abuse of power of representation

First, as alleged by the Plaintiff, we examine whether Defendant 2 signed the instant supply contract by abusing the power of representation for the purpose of promoting the interest of himself or the Defendant Company that he operated.

피고 2가 피고 회사의 대표이사이자 원고의 대표이사로서 이 사건 공급계약을, 피고 회사의 대표이사로서 애니파인더, 노바네트웍스와의 각 하도급계약을 각 체결한 사실, 이 사건 공급계약의 대금이 합계 890,769,596원인 반면에 피고 회사의 애니파인더, 노바네트웍스에 대한 하도급대금이 합계 303,106,925원인 사실은 앞서 인정한 바와 같고, 피고 회사에서 독자적으로 제공하였다는 용역의 가치가 그다지 크지 아니한 것으로 보이고, 이 사건 제2합의서 제2조 제(2)항 제8호에서, 원고는 가능한 신속히 정당한 거래내역을 파악한 이후에 피고 회사의 노바네트웍스, ㈜테라텍, 애니파인더에 대한 e-shop 인터넷쇼핑몰 구축과 관련한 각 채무를 인수하기로 약정한 점 등의 사정은 있다.

However, the following facts or circumstances are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 3 through 8, 14, 15, 20, 54, 55, 74, and 79, on the other hand.

In other words, the plaintiff filed a complaint under the charge of occupational breach of trust against the defendant 2 on the ground that the supply contract of this case was 890,000,000 won, even though the costs of the supply contract of this case were not more than 300,000 won. However, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office did not charge the defendant 2 on April 26, 2013. The prosecutor's office found that the plaintiff's e-shop shopping mall service charges of the same industry were 00,000 won at the time of the conclusion of the supply contract of this case to the defendant 2,000,000 won, and that the supply contract of this case was 30,000,000 won, and the supply contract of this case to the defendant 2,000,000,000 won was 9,000,000 won,000 won,00 won,00 won,00 won,00 won,00 won,00.

In light of the above circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 2 concluded the instant supply contract by abusing the power of representation for the sole purpose of calculating the price of the instant supply contract in excess and promoting the interests of himself/herself or the Defendant company that he/she runs, based on the facts and circumstances acknowledged above, and the statement of the evidence Nos. 20, 23-1, 23-2, respectively. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on this premise is without merit without any need to further examine.

C. Determination as to whether the instant supply contract becomes null and void due to a director’s own transaction

1) As seen earlier, the instant supply contract was concluded by Defendant 2, who concurrently served as the representative director of the Plaintiff and the Defendant company, and the instant supply contract constitutes “self-transaction of directors” as stipulated in Article 398 of the Commercial Act, and barring any special circumstance otherwise, it constitutes a transaction likely to cause conflicts of interest between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the instant supply contract is null and void in relation to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu1591, Dec. 11, 1984; 95Da12101, May 28, 1996).

2) As to this, even though the defendant's act of bearing a company's debt is subject to the approval of the board of directors as it constitutes a company's own transaction under Article 398 of the Commercial Act, the above provision's purpose is to prevent loss caused to the company and its shareholders. Thus, if all shareholders consent in advance to the act of bearing a debt, the company cannot avoid its liability on the ground that the act of bearing a debt was not approved by the board of directors. At the time of the conclusion of the supply contract of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff cannot avoid its liability under the supply contract of this case on the ground that the defendant 2, who is the single shareholder, was not approved by the board of directors.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s shares appears to have been reverted to investors, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 is entirely responsible for the management of the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff’s shares are reverted to the Plaintiff, or Defendant 2 is entirely responsible for the management of the Plaintiff, the above assertion by the Defendant Company is rejected.

A) Defendant 2, according to the instant agreement, acquired all the Plaintiff’s shares on July 201, pursuant to the said agreement, but did not pay the purchase price at all, and rather, Defendant 2 agreed on January 31, 2013, which was subsequent to Defendant 2’s acquisition of shares.

B) The first agreement was mainly aimed at enabling Defendant 2 to acquire the entire shares issued by the Plaintiff and normalize the Plaintiff’s management by exercising the right of management, and allowing the Plaintiff to repay the total amount of KRW 3.727 billion to investors in sequence.

C) On July 7, 2011, in order to achieve its objective, investors appointed Nonparty 4 as the Plaintiff’s auditor to supervise Defendant 2’s business activities, while having Defendant 2 created a pledge right on the entire Plaintiff’s issued stocks, and, when exercising voting rights on the secured stocks, had Defendant 2 obtain prior written consent from the pledgee on the method and content of exercising voting rights on matters that have a significant impact on the interests of the pledgee.

D) Even if Defendant 2, who was the representative director of the Plaintiff, was the Plaintiff’s shareholder, Defendant 2 guaranteed the rights of investors as agreed in the first agreement when exercising the right of management. If Defendant 2 operated in violation of the first agreement, he was in a position to be able to recover the Plaintiff’s issued shares through exercising the right of pledge and to be deprived of the right of management. In fact, Defendant 2 transferred the Plaintiff’s right of management and shares to investors under the second agreement.

E) A notice of convening a board of directors shall be given not only to directors but also to auditors (see Article 390(3) of the Commercial Act). An auditor has the authority to attend the board of directors to state his opinion (see Article 391-2(1) of the Commercial Act). Since the instant supply contract is a contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant company’s interests conflict, Defendant 2 should hold a board of directors who attended the meeting before entering into the instant supply contract and undergo the procedure for approval.

F) In the case of acquiring shares with the consent of another person and paying the price of shares by investing the shares in the name of another person, only the name borrower who actually subscribed for shares and actually paid the price shall not be a shareholder as the actual shareholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da29138, Mar. 26, 2004). The same applies to the case of acquiring shares by borrowing another person’s name in the course of incorporation of the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu319, Dec. 10, 1985; 2010Da22552, May 26, 201). Furthermore, considering the above legal principles, it is difficult for Defendant 2 to view it as a real shareholder of the Plaintiff.

D. Determination on the assertion of cancellation of a contract due to default

1) In full view of the basic facts acknowledged earlier, Gap's evidence Nos. 21, 22, 24, Eul evidence Nos. 13, 15, 55, 58, and 72, and the purport of the whole pleadings with the testimony of non-party 6 of the trial witness, the following facts are recognized.

A) According to the SMR Mall Business Agreement, the term “e-shop business” means an urban railroad distribution business in which goods are displayed via a medium of display installed in a history and a prior street, a space where goods are displayed, a specialized store that directly sells goods, an Internet shopping mall that conducts electronic commerce is closely connected (Article 71(6)). The scope of e-shop business is classified into a public relations medium that advertises goods, an exhibition place that displays goods, a specialized store that directly sells goods, stores that directly sells goods and stores goods, delivery, etc., an Internet shopping mall that sells goods through electronic commerce (Article 71(2)), and an online shopping mall that sells goods through electronic commerce (Article 71(2)); smart channels should establish and expand a system that e-shop can be operated smoothly following the increase in the number of visitors and customers (Article 75(1)); and an online shopping mall’s web guidance and search function of portal; the scope of e-shop business should be formulated and approved by the Seoul Metropolitan Government (Article 75(75).7).7).7).

B) Meanwhile, among the instant supply contract, the provisions pertaining to supply, inspection, payment of the price, cancellation and termination of the contract are as follows.

(2) In the event that the supply of the goods under paragraph (1) is completed, the company may not supply the goods by installments, except as required by the Plaintiff, or the delivery of the goods is permitted under the contract. (3) The company shall not, upon completion of the contract, notify the Plaintiff of the necessary inspection in writing. (2) The company may, within 7 days from the date of the contract or other relevant documents, conduct an inspection to verify the implementation of the contract in the presence of the Defendant company. (1) The company may, upon receipt of the notification under paragraph (1), extend the time limit for the delivery of the goods to the designated place. (2) The company may, within 3 days from the date of the contract or the date of the termination of the contract, request for the delivery of the goods to the effect that the delivery of the goods under paragraph (1) is not completed by reason of force majeure such as natural disasters. (3) The company may, upon completion of the contract, without delay make a request for the delivery of the goods to the Plaintiff or its delivery of the goods to the designated place by the Plaintiff.

1) Article 9

C) According to the execution design of the Plaintiff, Smart Channels, and the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation on November 11, 201, 201, the e-shop system construction is subject to consultation related to the establishment of the e-shop system. The Plaintiff (tallyman) examines the e-shop system supplied by the Defendant Company and confirms it in the presence of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation (Paragraph 1), and transfers the smart channel and the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation at the place designated by the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation after the end of the business period (Paragraph 1), (Paragraph 3), (e-shop system shopping mall and the title of trademark rights are transferred to the Plaintiff’s own ownership at the Plaintiff’s expense (Paragraph 4), and submit all documents verifying the ownership of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation at the Plaintiff’s expense, and the e-shop system shopping mall use rights are submitted in all documents at the time of completion (Paragraph 5).

라) 노바네트웍스는 2011. 12. 23.부터 2012. 1. 18.까지 e-shop 시스템 구축 장비 중 검색엔진을 제외한 모든 품목을 피고 회사와 IDC 서비스 계약을 체결한 아이하트 건물 내에 설치하였다. 검색엔진은 2012. 1.경 설치 후 2월 말에 현금결제하기로 약정하였다.

E) The Plaintiff, along with the Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Railroad Corporation and Smart Channels, conducted the inspection procedure on the e-shop system supplied by the Defendant Company from December 23, 201 to December 26, 2011. On December 27, 2011, the Plaintiff submitted the e-shop system inspection report (No. 13, the tallyman Nonparty 7, the Plaintiff’s representative director, and the tallyman Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff’s representative director) to the Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Railroad Corporation, and the said inspection results consist of H/W tally, S/W tally, pictures, e-hop system shopping mall verification, and the search engines that have not been supplied are also included in the S/tally.

F) Meanwhile, Nonparty 8, who was in office as the head of the Seoul Metropolitan City Urban Railroad Corporation, and was in charge of the management, supervision, and supervision of the instant smart mall project, is still serving in the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2014No1817) as of June 10, 201, upon Defendant 2’s request for convenience in supervision, on or around December 2011, on the grounds of the suspicion that he did not select an external supervisor at the time of the said inspection procedure and directly conducted an examination of the instant E-Sop shopping mall and received a bribe in return, etc., and was prosecuted as Seoul High Court 2013Da1381, which was found guilty of the above suspicion on or around June 10, 2014.

G) After January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) arranged the revised and corrected matters with the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation after the completion of inspection; (b) explained each page of the actual screen on which the system is operated; and (c) submitted a report on the results of the e-shop system containing the link between the data base components populations, the table specifications, and the program specifications.

아) 피고 회사가 용역대금을 지급하지 않자 노바네트웍스는 피고 회사에 검색엔진(e-shop 시스템 구축 장비 중 서버보안 REDOWL 제품, DB암호화 Sale DB 제품 소프트웨어의 사용권 증서 원본)을 납품하지 않았고, 그 이후에도 용역대금을 지급받을 수 없게 되자 2012. 11. 27. 피고 회사에 위 검색엔진에 대하여 공급가액을 “-40,250,000원”으로 하는 세금계산서를 발행하였다.

자) 또한 피고 회사가 애니파인더에 대금 68,992,000원 중 48,294,400원을 지급하지 아니하자, 애니파인더는 피고 회사를 상대로 서울동부지방법원 2012차3967호 로 지급명령을 신청하였고, 위 법원은 2012. 5. 11. “피고 회사는 애니파인더에 48,294,400원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급하라.”라는 취지의 지급명령을 하였으며, 위 지급명령은 2012. 6. 1. 확정되었다. 피고 회사는 노바네트웍스나 애니파인더로부터 쇼핑몰 구축물을 공급받아 이를 아이하트와의 IDC 서비스 계약에 따라 성남시 분당구 야탑동에 소재한 아이하트 사업장 내에 보관하고 있었다. 애니파인더는 2012. 7. 13. 위 지급명령에 기하여 아이하트가 자신의 사무실에서 관리하고 있던 서버에 구축된 시스템 중 서버(인텔SR1625) 7대를 포함한 유체동산을 압류하였고(감정평가액은 16,250,000원), 2012. 10. 31. 위 압류물건은 10,400,000원에 매각되었다.

2) 위 인정사실에 의하면, 비록 피고 회사가 원고로부터 검수를 받았다고 하더라도 S/W 검수리스트에는 납품되지 않은 검색엔진도 포함되어 있는 점, 피고 2가 서울특별시도시철도공사 관계자에게 편의를 보아 달라고 부탁하고 뇌물을 주는 상황에서 검수절차가 이루어진 점, 한편 계약일반조건 제4조 제1항에서 제품의 납품은 원고의 검수를 받은 후 합격품으로 원고가 제품을 수령한 때 완료하는데, 피고 회사는 노바네트웍스에 대금을 지급하지 않아 검색엔진을 제공받지 못한 점, e-shop 인터넷쇼핑몰에서 검색엔진이 없을 경우 원고로서는 이 사건 공급계약을 체결하지 않았을 것으로 보이는 점, 피고 회사가 원고에게 계약의 완전한 이행을 하지 못하고 있던 중 애니파인더에 대금을 지급하지 못하여 아이하트 사무실에서 관리하고 있던 일부 유체동산이 애니파인더의 경매절차 진행에 의하여 매각된 점, 또한 피고 회사가 이 사건 공급계약에 대한 이행을 모두 완료하였다고 주장하면서 이 사건 공급계약에 따른 의무를 이행할 의사가 없을 뿐만 아니라 현재 SMRT Mall 관련 사업이 무산되어 피고 회사가 현재 원고에게 이 사건 공급계약에 따른 채무를 이행하더라도 이 사건 공급계약을 체결한 목적을 달성할 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 살펴보면, 이 사건 공급계약의 채무불이행을 이유로 한 원고의 해제는 적법하다고 할 것이다.

3) 이에 대하여 피고 회사는 2011. 12. 26. 도시철도공사가 입회한 가운데 있었던 원고와 피고 회사 간의 검수절차로 이 사건 공급계약에 따른 피고 회사의 변제제공은 이미 완료된 것이고, 원고가 피고 회사에 이 사건 공급계약에 따른 잔금을 지급하지 아니함에 따라 피고 회사가 노바네트웍스와 애니파인더에 각각 물품대금을 지급하지 않아 노바네트웍스로부터 검색엔진을 제공받지 못하거나 애니파인더의 유체동산 경매신청에 의하여 아이하트 내에 설치된 서버 등 유체동산이 경매된 것이고, 위 유체동산 경매는 원고가 검수절차를 통하여 점유를 이전받은 후에 생긴 문제이므로 원고가 그 위험을 부담하여야 한다는 취지로 주장한다.

그러나 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 검수절차는 피고 2로부터 편의를 보아달라는 청탁을 받고 뇌물까지 받은 서울특별시도시철도공사의 관계자 입회하에 진행된 점, 원고가 검수하였다고 하더라도 피고 2 측 사람인 소외 7이 검수하였고, 검수결과서에서는 납품되지도 않은 검색엔진이 포함되어 있어 피고 회사가 계약의 이행을 완료했다고 볼 수는 없는 점, 일반계약조건 제7조 제1항에 의하면 피고 회사는 계약의 이행을 완료한 때에는 그 사실을 서면으로 원고에게 통지하고 필요한 검수를 받아야 하는데, 이 사건 검수는 계약의 이행을 완료하지 않은 상태에서 검수가 먼저 이루어진 점, 일반계약조건 제10조 제1항에 의하면, 피고 회사는 계약의 이행을 완료한 후 검사에 합격한 때에는 소정절차에 따라 대금지급을 청구할 수 있다고 규정하고 있으므로 피고 회사가 노바네트웍스로부터 검색엔진을 제공받아 원고에게 이를 납품하는 등 계약의 이행을 완료한 후 원고에게 대금지급을 청구할 수 있다고 해석되는 점, 피고 회사가 애니파인더에 물품대금을 지급하지 못함에 따라 유체동산이 경매된 이상 결국 경매된 유체동산도 원고에게 공급된 것으로 볼 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 살펴보면, 결국 피고 회사가 원고로부터 검수를 받았다는 사실만으로는 원고에게 이 사건 공급계약에 따른 의무를 이행하였다고 볼 수 없으므로, 피고 회사의 위 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

E. Determination as to Defendant Company’s assertion of good faith or exemption

1) Defendant Company asserts that Defendant 2’s claim against Defendant Company against Defendant Company was in violation of the principle of good faith or was discharged from Defendant Company’s obligation under Article 2(3) in accordance with the instant agreement. The Plaintiff sold Plaintiff’s shares to a third party, and the Plaintiff failed to enter into a contract related to smart channels and e-shop businesses, and that the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Company was invalid or rescinded of the instant supply contract in order to avoid the obligation under the instant agreement.

2) 살피건대, 이 사건 제2합의서 제2조 제(2)항 투자자들의 의무 2호에서, 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고 2에 대하여 부제소합의 조항을 두고, 같은 항 8호에서, “e-shop 인터넷 쇼핑몰 구축과 관련한 원고의 피고 회사에 대한 채무이행에 갈음하여, 원고는 가능한 신속히 정당한 거래내역을 파악한 이후에 피고 회사의 ㈜노바네트웍스(145,845,425원), ㈜테라텍(88,269,500원), ㈜애니파인더(48,294,400원)에 대한 e-shop 인터넷 쇼핑몰 구축과 관련한 각 채무를 인수하기로 한다. 명확히 하기 위하여 각 채무인수계약을 체결한 경우 원고의 피고 회사에 대한 위 채무는 소멸한다.”고 규정하였음은 앞서 본 바와 같다.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not make an agreement on the repayment of unjust enrichment or restitution to the Defendant Company separate from the agreement on the supply of this case to Defendant 2, and that the Plaintiff agreed to take over each obligation to the subcontractor of the Defendant Company “after ascertaining the possible and reasonable details of transactions,” as alleged by the Defendant Company, even if it was anticipated that the Plaintiff would take over the Plaintiff under Defendant 2’s main line at the time of the agreement on the second of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit after the childbirth, and it does not constitute a violation of the principle of good faith, and it is difficult to view that the agreement on the second of this case included the content of the Plaintiff’s waiver of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment or restitution to its original state due to the invalidation of the supply contract of this case to the Defendant Company, or the content of the Defendant Company’s exemption from the obligation. There is no evidence to acknowledge

F. The scope of the Plaintiff’s debt against the Defendant Company

1) Therefore, inasmuch as the instant supply contract was null and void by a director’s own transaction, or was lawfully rescinded due to the Defendant Company’s default, there was no obligation of KRW 428,769,596 under the supply contract of this case against the Plaintiff Company, among the obligations under the instant supply contract of this case against the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment or cancellation of the contract, and the amount of KRW 462,000,000,000 paid from the Plaintiff around December 31, 201, and the delay damages or statutory interest thereon.

2) 다음으로 먼저 원고는 피고 회사에 대한 별지 목록 기재 단기차입금 채무들이 노바네트웍스, 애니파인더에 대한 채권양도로 소멸하였다고 주장하므로, 이에 관하여 살펴본다.

As conceptually rights may arise between the same parties, several rights are specified by the same content, such as creditors and debtors, the type of claims, cause, date and time of occurrence, details of payment, amount of claim, and due date, etc. In the assignment of claims, the kinds and amount of transferred claims in the assignment of claims are not required to be specified specifically, but they should be specified to the extent that they can recognize their identity by distinguishing from other claims (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da5110 delivered on May 29, 1998).

갑 제5호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고 회사는 2012. 7. 18. 원고에게, 2012. 7. 11. 원고에 대한 대여금 채권 중 284,114,925원을 노바네트웍스에, 48,294,000원을 애니파인더에 각 양도하였다는 취지의 각 채권양도통지서를 발송하였고, 그 무렵 원고가 위 통지서들을 수령한 사실, 그러나 피고 회사는 노바네트웍스, 애니파인더와 사이에 별도의 채권양도계약서를 작성하지는 않았고, 위 채권양도통지서에는 원고에 대한 대여금 채권 중 피고 회사가 양도한 개별채권목록이 첨부되어 있지 않은 사실이 인정된다. 위 인정사실을 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 보건대, 피고 회사가 노바네트웍스, 애니파인더에 원고에 대한 대여금 채권을 양도할 당시 원고와 피고 회사 사이에 별지 목록 기재와 같이 다수의 단기차입금 채권이 존재하였던 점, 동일한 당사자 사이의 대여금채권이라도 여러 건인 경우 서로 별개의 권리인 점, 별지 목록 금액란을 비교·분석하여 보아도, 위와 같은 금액만으로는 양도대상인 채권이 어떤 채권인지 알기 어려운 것으로 보이는 점 등을 고려하면, 위와 같은 ‘원고에 대한 대여금 채권 중 284,114,925원’, ‘원고에 대한 대여금 채권 중 48,294,000원’이라는 기재만으로는 양도된 채권이 특정되었다고 보기에 부족하고, 달리 이와 같이 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서 위 각 채권양도통지는 양도채권이 특정되지 아니하여 그 효력이 있는 것으로 보기 어려우므로, 유효한 채권양도통지가 있었다는 원고의 위 주장은 이를 받아들이기 어렵다.

3) Next, the Plaintiff asserted that part of the short-term loans owed to the Defendant Company was set off against KRW 27 million that Defendant 2 withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is examined.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 25, 27, and 28, the fact that the amount of KRW 27 million has been transferred from the account under the plaintiff's name to the account under the defendant 2's name on July 27, 201, and August 30, 201, and the fact that the amount of KRW 27 million has not been indicated in the amount of debt repayment to the defendant company among the director of the plaintiff's transaction, but the above amount of KRW 27 million has not been transferred to the defendant 2's personal account, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff had any claim against the defendant company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence and the purport of the evidence No. 17 as a whole, it is acknowledged that: (a) KRW 27 million and KRW 4 million deposited as of August 8, 201; (b) KRW 16 million deposited as of August 25, 201; (c) KRW 11 million deposited as of August 26, 201; and (d) KRW 58,01,264, the balance of the Plaintiff’s passbook as of December 31, 201, deducted KRW 30 million deposited as of September 5, 201 by Defendant 2 from the Plaintiff’s balance sheet to the Plaintiff as of September 5, 2011; and (b) KRW 28,011,264, which is the sum of KRW 11,264 deposited as of December 31, 201.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the plaintiff has an automatic claim of KRW 27 million against the defendant company is without merit.

4) We examine whether the Plaintiff’s claim for the lease and management fee of KRW 22 million against the Defendant Company was extinguished by offset. First, the Plaintiff’s claim for the change of claim and management fee of KRW 22 million against the Defendant Company’s legal representative on April 23, 2013, which was based on the lease agreement of the fourth floor of Gangdong-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), is without dispute between the parties. The Plaintiff’s claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 462 million against the Plaintiff Company or the claim for restitution of KRW 22 million against the Plaintiff Company as the automatic claim. The Plaintiff’s claim for the change of claim and the ground for claim of KRW 22 million against the Plaintiff Company’s legal representative on April 24, 2013, which was written by facsimile, was reached by the Plaintiff’s legal representative on April 23, 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the above amount of the lease and management fee of KRW 20 million against the Defendant Company to the extent of set-off.

5) In regard to this, even if the supply contract of this case becomes invalid retroactively due to its invalidity or cancellation, the defendant company asserts that the plaintiff's claim of KRW 462 million against the defendant company is accompanied by the right of simultaneous performance defense with the purport that the plaintiff must restore all of the e-hop Internet shopping mall system supplied by the defendant company. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of KRW 462 million against the defendant company is not proper for offset.

피고 회사의 주장과 같이, 항변권이 붙어 있는 채권을 자동채권으로 하여 타의 채무와의 상계를 허용한다면 상계자 일방의 의사표시에 의하여 상대방의 항변권행사의 기회를 상실케 하는 결과가 되므로 이와 같은 상계는 그 성질상 허용될 수 없고( 대법원 1969. 10. 28. 선고 69다1084 판결 , 대법원 2002. 8. 23. 선고 2002다25242 판결 등 참조), 원고의 e-shop 인터넷쇼핑몰 시스템에 대한 원상회복의무와 피고의 4억 6,200만 원에 대한 부당이득반환채무 내지 원상회복의무는 공평의 원칙 내지 민법 제549조 , 제536조 에 의하여 동시이행관계에 있다고 할 것이다. 그러나 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고 회사가 원고에게 소프트웨어와 하드웨어의 납품을 마치지 못한 상태에서 아이하트 사무실 내에 보관하고 있던 중 피고 회사의 채권자인 애니파인더의 경매신청에 의하여 일부 유체동산은 경매에 붙여졌고, 나머지 유체동산은 아이하트 사무실 내에 보관되어 있는 것으로 보이는 점, 아이하트 사무실 내에 설치된 소프트웨어와 하드웨어 관하여 원고 명의로 임치인 명의가 변경되지 않은 점{을 제48, 49호증, 을 제80호증의 2의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고 2가 2012. 6. 13.경 투자자들에게 인계한 2012. 5. 31.자 미지급내역서 중 “아이하트(e-shop IDC 사용료, 3,890,000원) 원고로 명의변경 요망”이라고 기재된 사실, 피고 2 측인 소외 9가 2012. 7. 24. 투자자들 대리인인 소외 4에게 아이하트 사무실 내 유체동산이 압류되어 경매진행 중인 사실을 이메일로 알려 준 사실, 피고 2는 2012. 8. 2. 아이하트에 대하여 경매 진행 중인 유체동산은 피고 회사 소유가 아니라 원고 소유라고 주장하면서 항의하는 내용의 통보서를 발송한 사실은 인정되나, 당시 피고 회사가 노바네트웍스와 애니파인더에 물품대금을 지급하지 못하여 원고에게 소프트웨어와 하드웨어를 납품하지 못한 상태에서 유체동산 경매가 진행 중이었던 점을 고려하면, 앞서 인정한 사실만으로는 아이하트 사무실 내 유체동산이 원고에게 납품되었다거나 원고 소유로 되었다고 보기 어렵고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다}, 실시설계서(을 제15호증)에는 하드웨어 85,085,000원, 소프트웨어 514,868,750원, 쇼핑몰 개발비 290,815,846원, 합계 890,769,586원으로 기재되어 있어 피고 회사가 제공하는 고유 용역에 대한 대가가 별도 항목으로 계상되어 있지 않을 뿐만 아니라 피고 회사가 원고에게 실시설계서(을 제15호증)를 제출하고 e-shop 사업계획서(을 제119호증의 1 내지 3)를 이메일로 보내 그 용역을 제공하였다고 하더라도 피고 회사가 이 사건 공급계약에 따른 채무를 불이행하여 이 사건 공급계약이 해제되는 이상 원고가 피고 회사로부터 제공받은 고유의 용역에 대하여 그 대가를 지불할 의무가 있다고 볼 수 없고, 또한 위 실시설계서나 사업계획서는 서류나 이메일로 받은 것으로서 피고 회사에서도 이를 보관하고 있으므로 원고가 피고 회사에 원상회복으로 반환할 가치나 필요도 없다고 보이는 점, 그 밖에 달리 원고에게 이 사건 구축물이 납품되어 원고가 이를 보관하고 있다고 볼 증거가 없는 점 등에 비추어 살펴보면, 원고가 피고 회사에 대하여 원상으로 회복할 의무가 있다고 보기 어렵다. 따라서 이를 전제로 한 피고 회사의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

6) The fact that the Plaintiff bears the Defendant Company’s obligation of KRW 545,132,40, as stated in the separate sheet, except for the short-term loan amounting to KRW 41,52,660 as stated in the balance sheet list, is not a dispute between the parties. The Plaintiff offsets the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 22,00,000,000,000, which remains after offsetting the said obligation of KRW 444,132,400,000 against the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment or restitution of the Defendant Company’s obligation and the claim for restitution of KRW 5,132,40,00 against the Plaintiff Company. Of the short-term loan amount stated in the separate sheet against the Defendant Company as stated by the Plaintiff, the remaining obligation against the Defendant Company remaining after the set-off is set off in the same order as above (i.e., KRW 105,132,400,400,000, KRW 400,000).

7) Therefore, among the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company did not have any obligation of KRW 428,769,596 under the instant supply contract as of January 2, 2012, and KRW 22,00,000 for short-term loans as indicated in the separate sheet does not exceed KRW 105,132,40 (i.e., KRW 20,072,400 among the obligations described in paragraph (7) + the total obligation described in paragraphs (8) through (29) does not exceed KRW 85,060,00. Since the Defendant Company is disputing the scope of the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendant Company, the benefit of confirmation is also the benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination as to the instant lawsuit against Defendant 2

A. Defendant 2’s defense prior to the merits

원고가 피고 2에 대하여 피고 2가 임의 사용한 ① 전도금 35,201,264원, ② 2011. 8. 8.부터 2011. 8. 26.까지 원고의 계좌에서 인출한 돈 총 3,100만 원 중 피고 2가 2011. 9. 5. 원고의 계좌로 입금한 3,000만 원을 공제한 100만 원, ③ 2011. 8. 3. 원고의 계좌에서 인출한 500만 원, ④ 2011. 12. 27. 원고의 계좌에서 인출한 1,900만 원 합계 60,201,264원(= 35,201,264원 + 1,000,000원 + 5,000,000원 + 19,000,000원) 중 피고 회사가 원고에 대하여 주장하는 채권액(단기차입금)에서 공제한 1,645,550원을 제외한 나머지 58,555,714원(= 60,201,264 - 1,645,550원)과 원고의 대표이사로서의 임무에 위배하여 ① 2011. 8. 3. 주식회사 나담에 대여한 4,000만 원, ② 2012. 1. 20. 노바네트웍스를 대신하여 납부한 이행지급보증보험료 46,596,000원 총 합계 145,151,714원(= 58,555,714원 + 40,000,000원 + 46,596,000원) 및 이에 대한 지연손해금의 지급을 구함에 대하여, 피고 2는 이 사건 합의 제2조 (3)항에서 피고 2의 원고 대표이사 재임 및 경영기간 중 행위에 대하여 민·형사상의 책임을 묻지 않기로 약정하였으므로, 피고 2에 대한 이 사건 소는 위 부제소합의에 위반하여 제기된 것으로 부적법하다고 주장한다.

(b) Markets:

1) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have agreed to exempt Defendant 2 from liability for the Plaintiff during the period of office and management of Defendant 2’s representative director as the Plaintiff transferred 100% of the Plaintiff’s shares issued by Defendant 2 to investors under the agreement with Defendant 2, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement of exemption from liability as above constitutes exemption from liability for damages under the Civil Act, and at the same time, exemption from liability for directors’ consent under Article 400(1) of the Commercial Act and exemption from liability for damages under the agreement of all the shareholders under Article 400(1) of the Commercial Act. As seen above, Defendant 2 performed the obligation under the agreement of this case under Article 2, barring any special circumstance, the instant lawsuit against Defendant 2 is unlawful as it violates the above agreement of exemption from liability.

2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant 2 is not liable for the result of Defendant 2’s lawful management acts, not liability for Defendant 2’s criminal acts, and that if the content of the instant agreement is agreed not to impose liability on Defendant 2’s criminal acts, such agreement is null and void as it is a legal act with a content that violates good morals and other social order. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the facts that Defendant 2 would be individually useful for the Plaintiff’s company fund at the time of the instant agreement are related to a situation in which the investors could not expect, and thus, the effect of the said provision does not extend to Defendant 2’s use of the Plaintiff’s company fund.

However, as long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein. Where there is any difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the document in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002).

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the developments leading up to the preparation of the instant agreement, the text of the instant agreement, which states that Defendant 2 and Plaintiff management shall not be held liable for civil or criminal liability, and the implementation of the parties’ agreed terms, it is difficult to deem that the said agreement exempted the liability only for the legitimate part, following the legitimacy of Defendant 2’s management act, or that at the time, Defendant 2 could not anticipate the situation that Defendant 2 would be misappropriation of the Plaintiff Company’s funds. Ultimately, if Defendant 2 performed the obligation under the instant agreement, it is reasonable to deem that the said agreement did not hold Defendant 2 liable for the damages incurred prior to the performance of the said obligation, and it is difficult to deem that the said agreement constitutes a juristic act with the content of matters contrary to good morals and other social order.

As alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted, since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the foregoing provision on the action is purporting not to hold Defendant 2 liable only for Defendant 2’s legitimate management activities is not believed in light of the aforementioned circumstances, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

3) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that even if Defendant 2’s above provision is deemed as a provision exempting Defendant 2 from misappropriation of the Plaintiff Company’s funds, Defendant 2’s expression of intent to not file a lawsuit against Defendant 2 on behalf of the Plaintiff, such as unjust enrichment, is null and void due to abuse of power of representation.

However, as seen earlier, the instant agreement was concluded with the intent of all interested parties, such as the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the investors who take over the management rights with the Plaintiff’s stocks and the Plaintiff’s stocks, and Defendant 2 did not unilaterally exempt Defendant 2 from the liability by returning the Plaintiff’s issued stocks to investors instead of avoiding civil and criminal liability, and by having agreed to resign from the Plaintiff’s representative director, etc., in light of the developments leading up to the instant agreement and the details of the agreement, etc., it is difficult to deem that Defendant 2 had abused the Plaintiff’s power of representation to have made an action, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims against the defendant company shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the lawsuit against the defendant company of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful. Since the part against the defendant company of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in some different conclusions, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant company of this case shall be partially accepted, and the part against the defendant company of this case shall be revoked, and the obligation against the defendant company of this case shall not exceed the above scope of recognition, and the remaining appeal against the defendant company of this case shall be dismissed, and since the part against the defendant 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant company of this case is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2 of this case shall be dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-woo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)

Note 1) seems to be a clerical error in Article 7.