beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
Reasons
1. The reasons for this Court’s finding of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the new argument made by the Defendants in the trial by the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). As such, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence
2. Determination as to new arguments made by the Defendants in the trial
A. As to the assertion of discharge under the business judgment rule, the defendants purchased each of the securities of this case after collecting and sufficiently reviewing the information necessary to operate the plaintiff's surplus funds, which is in accordance with the business judgment, and therefore, the defendants do not have liability for damages due to breach of duty of due care as a good manager.
If a director commits an act in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes in performing his/her duties, such act itself constitutes default on the company, and as long as damage to the company is caused by such act, he/she shall not be exempted from liability
Therefore, there is no room for applying the business judgment rule that can be considered when a director is liable for damages due to a director's breach of the duty of care in performing his duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da34929, Jul. 15, 2005). Defendant D is not an officer registered in the Plaintiff's corporate register but is not an officer registered in the Plaintiff's corporate register. As seen earlier, the business judgment rule does not apply to the case where the Defendants violated the former provisions of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act. Thus, the Defendants' above assertion is without merit.
B. As to the assertion that there is no causation, even if the Defendants were to have purchased each of the securities of this case in violation of Article 43 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, the financial crisis of the U.S., which was unexpected since the second half of 2007.