beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) were changed from “Defendant Co., Ltd. L to the current trade name on February 28, 2013, and were changed to the current name on February 28, 2013; hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”). Defendant B is currently an internal director who is the representative of the Defendant Co., Ltd., and Defendant C was the former internal director of the Defendant Co., Ltd.
B. The Plaintiff’s representative director H became aware of Defendant B, which was his father through M, and Defendant B served as the vice president from April 2010 to January 2013.
C. Around June 1, 2010, H promised Defendant B to the effect that “a new corporation is established for the purpose of listing the Plaintiff’s KOSDAQ, and a new corporation is to be operated in the name of Defendant B’s husband and wife C.”
Accordingly, the defendant company was established on January 27, 201, and the defendant C was appointed as the inside director of the defendant company on the same day.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8-3, 4, 22, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 20 and 21, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's ground of claim
A. Defendant B, who actually operated Defendant B’s Embezzlement’s Embezzlement embezzlement and breach of trust, was employed as the vice president of the Plaintiff; Defendant B, while working as the vice president of the Plaintiff, sold Party B without permission to a customer in the name of the Defendant Company, and supplied KRW 488,09,475 [Defendant B, who sold at the customer’s seat 704,50,500 (= KRW 560 x 704,500 x 700 x 500 x 704,500 x 500 x 560 x 560 x 505 x ) in the form of selling at the seat of Party B, who directly brought about by Party B to the Plaintiff, supplied the Plaintiff with the tax invoice by asserting that the sales price of Party B was excessive in revenue of Party B’s company from February 2, 2012 to December 8, 2012.