1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added in the appellate court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 16, 2012, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) was declared bankrupt on August 16, 2012 by Busan District Court 2012Hahap4, and is currently in bankruptcy proceeding.

The plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy of A.

B. G and H, who was the president of A, were the representative director, established a special purpose corporation (SPC) by lending the name of an officer or employee’s family or a person, etc. in the form of stockholders or an officer in order to implement a project or obtain a loan necessary therefor by avoiding the restrictions under the Mutual Savings Banks Act, and thereafter making a loan to a special purpose corporation and thereby making a development project of real estate, golf course, etc

D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) is one of the special purpose corporations established by such a method.

C. From July 1, 2008 to September 1, 2011, Defendant B served as a director or in-house director, and Defendant C as an auditor respectively, and received KRW 1,500,000 per month as the salary.

D has been granted a loan of a total of KRW 28,323,00,000 from June 19, 2008 to April 2010 and bears the obligations of KRW 23,617,498,163 as of April 19, 2013, and is currently insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 (if available, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants’ determination as to the main safety defense of the Defendants is with regard to the instant claim filed by the Plaintiff, claiming a vicarious exercise of D’s claim against the Defendants by setting the Plaintiff’s claim against D as the preserved claim, and D’s loan to a special purpose corporation, the Plaintiff owned 100% of the Plaintiff’s share, constitutes extension of credit to the Plaintiff itself, and accordingly, the instant claim is unlawful as it does not exist with the Plaintiff’s preserved claim against D.

D Even if the D is a special purpose corporation as argued by the Defendants, it has a separate legal personality from the Plaintiff.