exemption of directors from liability to the company

Even if the Defendants embezzled the company’s money as a director of the Plaintiff Company, if the Defendants agreed to attach it as a shareholder or other shareholder of the Plaintiff Company, then the Defendants’ liability for damages against the Plaintiff Company shall be deemed to have been exempted with the consent of the total shareholder.

Article 400 of the Commercial Act

황해똑딱선주식회사

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Central District Court (66A8196) of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 66Da8196)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant et al. shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to 5,786,456 won and 5 percent per annum from the following day of service to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc. and a provisional execution declaration are declared.

From October 2, 1959 to November 25, 1965, the fact that the defendant et al. held office as the director of the plaintiff company (the defendant 2 is the representative director; the defendant 3 is the chief director; the defendant 1 is the chief director; the defendant 1 is the chief director; the defendant is the chief director; the defendant 1 is the chief director; the defendant is the chief director); there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff's representative director and the non-party 1's representative director and the non-party 2's representative director at the time of the plaintiff's employment. The defendant's representative director and the non-party 1's defendant company's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's.

Therefore, it is clear that the defendants' liability for damages against the plaintiff was extinguished after the lapse of the judgment as stated in the above, and the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is compensation for damages on the premise that the defendants are liable for damages, is just because there is no need to make a judgment on other points, and therefore it is dismissed. Thus, the judgment of the court below, which is based on this conclusion, is just and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same

Judges Lee Tae-ho (Presiding Judge)