The case holding that a director of the company is liable to compensate the company for damages caused to the company during the personal business management.

When a person who was registered as a director of the company establishes the Seoul Company's Seoul Office in the permission of the company, independent of the above company's business and accounting, and prepares related documents from the above company in lieu of the above company and receives them from others and operates the business under a contract for construction, the above company shall be liable to compensate the other party for the damages related to the business.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 67Da2522 decided Jan. 28, 1969 (Law No. 750(3)(b)(12)184 of the Civil Act)

Dong Mutual Savings Bank

Defendant corporation

Masan District Court of the first instance (84 Gohap704)

Under the original judgment, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment of money shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,60,000 won with the annual interest rate of 5% from October 31, 1984 to September 16, 1986, and 25% per annum from September 17, 1986 to the full payment rate.

The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

Two-minutes of litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, through the first and second trials.

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 16,50,000 won with the interest rate of 25 percent per annum from October 31, 1984 to the full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

1. Evidence Nos. 8 (Judgment), Gap evidence Nos. 11-2 (b) and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (written statement), Gap evidence No. 5 (written statement), and Gap evidence No. 4 which are acknowledged to have been authenticity by the testimony of the non-party 2 of the original judgment, and the new witness No. 10-2 (written statement) which are recognized to have been authenticity by the testimony of the original judgment No. 10-1000 (written statement) and the above non-party 2, new delivery, and current trial witness testimony of the original judgment No. 90. 1000 (written statement) are not so established; the defendant company established the Seoul Office under the permission of the defendant company as its director;

Thus, in the qualification of the director and the head of the Seoul office of the defendant company, the non-party 1, jointly with the non-party 2, who is an employee of the plaintiff's safe in relation to his duties, embezzled the above three promissory notes, the sum of 16,500,000 won, which are kept by the plaintiff's safe, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff's safe. If the defendant company permitted the non-party 1 to establish the Seoul office of the defendant company as a director of the defendant company and to use the name of the director of the defendant company and to conduct the business in the name of the defendant company, the defendant company is liable to compensate the non-party 1 for the damage inflicted upon the plaintiff's safe, as if

However, according to the above facts of recognition, the non-party 2, who is an employee of the plaintiff's treasury, has been negligent in taking part in the above illegal acts and neglecting to supervise the business thereof. Considering this, the defendant company should compensate for 6,600,000 won out of the above amount of damages.

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of 6,600,000 won and damages for delay, which are the interest day for delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which the plaintiff seeks, from October 31, 1984 to September 16, 1986, the date of the final judgment. Thus, it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's liability for the above damages. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of interest at each rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, and 25% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 17, 1986 to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above recognized limit, and the remainder shall be dismissed without any justifiable reason. Accordingly, since the part against the plaintiff who lost the conclusion different from the original judgment is improper, the remaining part shall be dismissed, and the provisional execution shall be applied with respect to the payment of litigation costs as prescribed by Articles 96, 89 and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Ansan-man (Presiding Judge) Conditions of 00 days