beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,911,317 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from August 29, 2017 to October 19, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of damages amounting to KRW 214,502,354 and damages for delay as the Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2012Gahap2229, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff. The grounds for the claim are as follows: ① The Plaintiff A is a stock company C (hereinafter “C”).
(2) The Plaintiff refused to sell the 665.8m2, North-gu, North-gu, North-gu, North-gu, and owned Y, and thereby C paid additional expenses of KRW 401,704,709 to financial institutions. ② From among the buildings on the 4th floor of the above E-owned E, the Plaintiff acquired profits of KRW 27,300,00 in a personal way, which is equivalent to the leased revenue. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Defendant B by asserting that the aforementioned court dismissed the Defendant B’s claim on November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit as follows: (a) KRW 214,502,354 [i] [i] half of the total sum of the above amounts, KRW 401,704,709, KRW 27,300,000] x 1/2], and delay damages therefrom.
Plaintiff
A has a duty to compensate for the above damage because he/she neglected his/her duties as the representative director of C, thereby causing damage to C.
3) On July 22, 2015, the said appellate court rendered a judgment on July 22, 2015, stating that “Plaintiff A assumed office as an internal director of the F real estate intermediary that engages in the same kind of business as C without the approval of the board of directors of C, and, on February 2, 2016, C requests the F Real Estate Brokerage to rent the building, and C pays 9,207,000 won to F Real Estate Brokerage, constitutes a violation of Article 398 of the Commercial Act,” and that “Plaintiff A pays 9,207,000 won and delay damages to C.” The foregoing judgment was dismissed by both parties’ final appeals and became final and conclusive on December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff was subject to the said judgment as at February 2, 2016.