[1] Whether a director or a director of a stock company is liable for damages under Article 399 of the Commercial Act in a case where a director or a director of a stock company made a voluntary consumption of funds to the representative director, etc. and made a false accounting as if he made a normal disbursement (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a director or a director of a stock company provided financial support without preparing a property preservation plan despite being aware that the financial support fund for an affiliate is less likely to be repaid, whether he/she is liable to compensate for damage under Article 399 of the Commercial Act (affirmative)

[3] Whether a representative director of a corporation is liable for damages under Article 399 of the Commercial Act in cases where he/she takes over corporate bills issued by a company with little ability to repay debts without taking reasonable measures to recover debts (affirmative)

[4] Whether the representative director of a corporation can be deemed as a failure to perform his/her duties, in itself, because he/she was unaware of, or was unaware of, the creation and use of funds that occurred inside the company (affirmative)

[5] Whether Article 401-2 (1) 3 of the Commercial Act applies to a case where a person who is not a director conducts a company's business by using a title whose executive authority is expressed, regardless of whether the director has a decision-making authority equivalent to that of the director (affirmative)

[6] Whether a director is liable to compensate for the company's damages caused by a director's negligence where he/she knew or was able to know about an illegal act in which his/her subordinate employee participated within his/her business territory (affirmative)

[1] The director or the de facto director of a corporation (Article 401-2 (1) 3 of the Commercial Act) has a duty to manage the corporation's funds acquired in the course of business by depositing them into the corporation's account in full and using them for the purpose and profit of the corporation. In addition, in a case where a part of the corporation's funds acquired in the course of business is raised and managed in a separate "foreign capital" from the corporation's account, and in a case where it is managed in an irregular manner, it is not caused to losses to the corporation or its stockholders, and take measures to recover the entire amount at any time in advance, and thereby manage the corporation's funds appropriately. Thus, in violation of such duty, in a case where the fund is raised and managed in violation of such duty and the company's total amount was paid to the representative director, etc. so that it could not be used for the purpose other than the company's public expenses but can not be collected in normal account, barring special circumstances, the corporation is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of

[2] A director or a director of a stock company (Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act) is obligated to immediately suspend financial assistance, recover the existing subsidy, etc. in the event that the business outlook of an affiliated company is uncertain and the financial status becomes extremely poor, or to take appropriate measures to prevent damage to the company’s property by being provided sufficient security to preserve the claim, even in the case of providing additional funds, and to take appropriate measures to prevent damage to the company’s property. Thus, in a case where a director or a director of a stock company causes damage equivalent to the company by providing financial assistance only without considering the property preservation plan, even though he/she is aware that there is little possibility that the funds provided to an affiliated company would be repaid due to his/her violation of his/her duties, barring special circumstances, jointly and severally, pursuant to Article 399 of the Commercial Act, the company is obligated to pay the remaining amount after deducting the amount recovered by the company from the amount

[3] Although the representative director of a stock company has a duty to lend a third party or provide funds with reasonable recovery measures such as a thorough examination of its financial status, repayment ability, etc., he/she is jointly and severally liable to pay the company the unpaid balance out of the subsidies and delayed payment damages in accordance with Article 399 of the Commercial Act, in cases where the company, in violation of its duty, did not take reasonable recovery measures such as the provision of sufficient security even though he/she knows that the final payment of the subsidies is in a situation where the ability to repay the debts is almost insufficient, and causes damage to the company by accepting commercial papers issued by the company, barring special circumstances.

[4] A director of a stock company has a duty to comprehensively monitor the performance of his duties even if he is not directly in charge of his duties. In particular, in a large company where the duties of directors are subdivided in the management structure and the individual director is bound to focus on a specific field, the representative director is more likely to monitor the performance of duties of directors and the representative director is obligated to prepare a system for properly monitoring and supervising the performance of duties of directors. Thus, even if there is no direct participation in raising and using funds by other directors, the representative director of the stock company is not aware of, or neglected to, the creation and use of funds, which were incurred inside the company.

[5] Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act provides that if a person who is not a director executes a company's business by using a title representing the executive authority in itself, he/she shall be deemed a director and shall be held equally responsible for the company's business. Thus, regardless of whether the person has a decision-making authority equivalent to the director's company's managing authority by using the name of the regular director or the former director, etc., it shall be subject to Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act.

[6] It is difficult to view that a person stipulated in Article 401-2 (1) 3 of the Commercial Code has an obligation to monitor the performance of duties by other executives and employees to the extent equivalent to the director when considering the language and the position of the person, etc. However, even so, if the person has been aware, or could have known, of the illegal performance of duties which occurred by his subordinate employees within his/her own business territory at least within his/her own business territory, he/she shall be liable for damages incurred thereby

[1] Articles 399 and 401-2 (1) 3 of the Commercial Act / [2] Articles 399 and 401-2 (1) 3 of the Commercial Act / [3] Article 399 of the Commercial Act / [4] Article 399 of the Commercial Act / [5] Article 401-2 (1) 3 of the Commercial Act / [6] Articles 399 and 401-2 (1) 3 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rogo, Attorneys Nog Jong-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and seven others (Law Firm Dong-in et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 28, 2008

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 8: 14,67,372,731; 10,476,694,808 out of the above KRW 14,67,372,731; and Defendant 2 and Defendant 8 jointly and severally with Defendant 8; 6,286,016,884 out of the above KRW 10,476,694,808;

B. Defendant 8: (a) and Defendant 2 jointly and severally with Defendant 8 KRW 875,475,50 out of the above KRW 1,225,65,705,70; and (b) Defendant 3, jointly and severally with Defendant 2 and 8, KRW 525,285,30 out of the above KRW 875,475,50,50; and (c) Defendant 6 and 7, jointly and severally with Defendant 2, 3, and 8, KRW 175,095,100 out of the above KRW 525,285,300;

C. Defendant 8: 498,205,367 won; Defendant 3, jointly and severally with Defendant 8, as indicated above, KRW 213,516,586 out of the above KRW 498,205,367; Defendant 1, jointly and severally with Defendant 3,516,586 out of the above KRW 71,172,195 out of the above KRW 213,516,586;

D. Defendant 8:2,593,431,22; Defendant 3, 4, and 5 were jointly and severally with Defendant 8; KRW 1,11,470,523 out of the above KRW 2,593,431,222; Defendant 1 was jointly and severally with Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 8; KRW 370,490,174 out of the above KRW 1,111,470,523;

E. Defendant 8:420,437,041 won; Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 jointly and severally with Defendant 8 KRW 180,187,303 out of the above KRW 420,437,041; Defendant 1, jointly and severally with Defendant 3, 5, and 8, KRW 60,062,434 out of the above KRW 180,187,303;

F. Defendant 8: 695,803,317; Defendant 3, 4, and 5, jointly and severally with Defendant 8, 298,201,421 out of the above KRW 695,803,317;

G. Defendant 8:210,350,728; Defendant 3 and Defendant 5, jointly and severally with Defendant 8, 90,150,312 of the above KRW 210,350,728;

H. Defendant 8: (a) the 1,773,492,96 won; (b) the 1,266,780,712 out of the above 1,773,492,996 won; and (c) the 3, jointly and severally with Defendant 8, the 760,068,427 out of the above 1,266,780,712 won;

I. Defendant 8 is jointly and severally with Defendant 8 2,202,896,796, and Defendant 2 is jointly and severally with Defendant 2,202,896,796, and KRW 1,573,497,712 out of the above KRW 1,573,497,712, and Defendant 3 is jointly and severally with Defendant 2,573,497,712, and KRW 94,098,627 out of the above KRW 1,573,497,712, and Defendant 6, and 7 is jointly and severally with Defendant 2,3,8, and KRW 314,69,542 out of the above KRW 94,69,627,

(j) Defendant 8,758,174,187; Defendant 2 and Defendant 8 jointly and severally with Defendant 8,758,174,187; KRW 6,255,838,705 out of the above KRW 6,255,838,705; Defendant 3 and jointly and severally with Defendant 2 and 8; KRW 3,753,503,223 out of the above KRW 6,255,838,705; and Defendant 1 and jointly and severally with Defendant 2,3,753,503,503,223 out of the above KRW 3,751,167,741;

(k) Defendant 8: 9,141,363,352 won; 3,917,727,150 won out of the above 9,141,363,352 won; and 1,305,909,050 won out of the above 3,917,717,150 won, jointly and severally with Defendant 3,5, and 8;

T. Defendant 8: (i) KRW 15,263,434,895; and (ii) KRW 10,902,453,497 of the aforementioned KRW 15,263,434,895, jointly and severally with Defendant 8;

In addition, with respect to each of the above amounts, 5% interest per annum from February 7, 2007 to January 9, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff

1. Defendants 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are jointly and severally liable for 8,379,364,425 won;

2. Defendants 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are jointly and severally liable for 14,324,976,191

3. Defendants 3, 4, 5, and 8 shall be jointly and severally 4,698,906,484 won and Defendant 1 shall be jointly and severally and severally 3,704,901,745 won out of the said money with the above Defendant;

4. Defendants 3, 5, and 8 jointly and severally with the said Defendants KRW 901,125,385; Defendant 1 jointly and severally with the said Defendants KRW 600,623,545 out of the said money;

5. Defendants 1, 3, and 8 shall be jointly and severally liable for 711,721,954 won;

6. The defendant 3 and 8 shall be jointly and severally 31,251,324,762 won;

7. Defendant 2, jointly and severally with Defendant 3 and 8, amounting to KRW 13,817,102,049 out of the money stated in 6.

8. Defendants 6 and 7 are jointly and severally with Defendant 2, 3, and 8, and KRW 5,113,689,936, out of the amount described in paragraph 7.

9. Defendant 5, jointly and severally with Defendant 3 and 8, as KRW 17,034,547,850, out of the amount described in 6.

10. Defendant 1, jointly and severally with Defendant 3 and 8, shall be KRW 24,769,287,311 out of the money stated in 6.

k. Defendants 2, 6, and 8 shall be jointly and severally liable for 21,804,906,994 won

In addition, with respect to each of the above money, 20% interest per annum shall be paid from the day after the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendants' status, etc.

1) Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (hereinafter “ Nonparty 1, etc.”) served as an executive officer or employee of the Plaintiff Company as follows.

Non-party 1, who is in the above service period of this title once in the table contained in the main sentence, shall be the representative director from January 1, 1992 to October 3, 201, the overall management of the president, from September 10, 200 to February 29, 200, the overall management of the president, such as the president's personnel, accounting, and financing, shall be 35/100 to May 31, 200; 43. The overall management of the office of 193.7.9 to 9.7.97.196. The general management of the office of 19.7.9 to 19.6.7.196. The general management department of the general management department and the general management office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City office (the head of the Financial Support Headquarters).

Defendant 5, formally, was appointed as a director at a general meeting of shareholders on March 24, 2000, but actually served as the president from March 1, 2000.

○ Nonparty 1, Defendant 2, 3, and 5 were registered as directors, but Defendants 1, 4, 6, and 7 were not registered as directors.

2) Defendant 8 is the only heir of the deceased Nonparty 1.

3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff Company established a separate office from the head office located in Ischeon-si, and has a financial office, business office, promotion office, and business office under its jurisdiction. The Plaintiff Company’s major financial affairs were ordinarily conducted by the employees in charge of the financial office, the officers in charge, the head of the Seoul office, the head of the management support headquarters, the representative director, the president, and the chairman. The employees in charge of the financial office were Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3.

(b) Raising of funds;

Non-party 1 et al. prepared a false statement as if the purchase price was disbursed in purchasing foreign currency even without purchasing foreign currency, and then withdrawn the purchase price from the Plaintiff’s account on the basis of foreign currency purchase, and treat the foreign currency purchase price as a loss for foreign currency conversion at the end of the month and treat all the purchase price of the processed foreign currency as cash or the fact that the above statement of the unit price was made in cash as if the foreign country did not import raw and subsidiary materials, and prepares a false statement as if it was spent for the issuance of the necessary credit and the settlement of bill of lading (B/L). The statement of unit price is withdrawn from the corporation’s account under the same name, and the number of unit price per cash can be deposited from the corporation’s account in cash, and the bill of lading was not opened and managed separately from the Plaintiff’s account as stated in attached Table 1 [Non-Party 1] by means of foreign currency conversion into the total amount of the bill of lading’s account (hereinafter the above 29,016,094,439).

(c) Unfair support for affiliate companies;

1) On June 1993, the Plaintiff Company acquired IMM music Co., Ltd. (the trade name before changing on or around April 1997: Hyundai Sound Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “KMM music”) and established Korea Music Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Music Broadcasting”) on or around July 13, 1994 (hereinafter “Korea Music Broadcasting”) (hereinafter “Korea Music Broadcasting”) under the name of the third party. The Plaintiff Company is a music production company, and the Korea Music Broadcasting Co., Ltd. is a company that manufactures and sells various visual works.

2) Since 1995, Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. were in the state of lacking ability to repay even if it received funds from the Plaintiff due to the unsound business outlook and the extremely poor financial standing. As a result of the management diagnosis conducted on or around July 1998, Korea’s music broadcasting, etc., as a result of the management diagnosis conducted on Korea’s music broadcasting, etc., deemed that large-scale capital increase is necessary to suspend music broadcasting business or to make the financial structure healthy, but the Plaintiff was not able to participate in capital increase in Korea’s music broadcasting, etc.

3) However, upon Nonparty 4’s request for financial support from the deceased Nonparty 1, Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, the Plaintiff supported KRW 41,721,324,762 in total to the music broadcasting company, etc. (hereinafter “the affiliate affiliate of this case”) as shown in the attached Table 2, in a manner that the Plaintiff purchased the U.S. bill with the purchase of the U.S. bill, thereby discounting the U.S. bill with the purchase of the U.S. bill, or purchases the commercial paper (CP) issued by the Korean music broadcasting company, etc. from the U.S., with the purchase of the U.S. bill, if the Plaintiff purchased it with the purchase of the U.S. bill, the U.S. bill at issue.

4) Since then, the partial division of Korea’s music broadcasting was transferred to Hyundai Seanet around September 200, and the rest division and IM community of Korea’s music broadcasting were liquidated around that time.

5) On January 26, 2001, the Plaintiff was ordered by the Fair Trade Commission to pay the penalty surcharge of KRW 233,000,000 in relation to the financial support of the Plaintiff’s music broadcasting business. The Plaintiff was ordered to take corrective measures against the payment order of KRW 233,00,000 in relation to financial support

6) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff recovered a total of KRW 10,470,000,00 in connection with the instant affiliate support fund.

(d) Support for Han Construction Co., Ltd.

1) Korea Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Construction”) is an affiliate company of Korea Group, which is run by the chairman of the Hyundai Group to which the Plaintiff belongs, under the East Group’s management of the East Group, the dynamics of the deceased Jong-young.

2) On December 197, 1997, Han Group affiliate affiliates were faced with the crisis of insolvency several times, but at each time, they were faced with the intent of financial institutions or the affiliates of Hyundai Group affiliates. Ultimately, Han Group affiliate affiliates including Han Construction, etc. were paid the final portion on December 6, 1997, and thereafter, the composition procedure was commenced for Han Construction.

3) However, with the involvement of the deceased Nonparty 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 6, the Plaintiff accepted commercial papers (amounting to KRW 40,092,267,135, Dec. 9, 1997) issued by Hanra Construction (hereinafter “Support for Hanra Construction”). In this case, the Plaintiff was offered as security 1,440,000 shares issued by Hando Machinery Co., Ltd., an affiliate company of Hanra Construction.

4) Since then, the Plaintiff received commercial papers from the Fair Trade Commission on the grounds that it had taken over the instant commercial papers under substantially favorable terms to the Hanra Construction support, and received corrective orders, publication of facts of violation of the Act, and payment of penalty surcharges.

5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received KRW 18,287,360,141 from the composition procedure for Hando Construction and returned KRW 1,440,00 of the shares of Hando Machinery Co., Ltd.

(e) Flags;

Defendant 2, 3, and 4 were convicted by the court in relation to the creation and use of the instant non-financing and the support for the instant affiliate company [the first instance court: 2005Gohap65, Seoul Central District Court; 2005No946, 2005No2557 (Joint) 4]. The Defendants filed an appeal, but the appeal was withdrawn on January 26, 2007, and the judgment of the second instance became final and conclusive as it is.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) As to the creation and use of the instant non-financial funds

A) According to the above facts, the deceased non-party 1 et al. is a director or director of the Plaintiff company (Article 401-2 (1) 3 of the Commercial Act). The funds acquired by the Plaintiff for the business purpose and profit of the corporation should be deposited into the corporation’s account in full, and managed for the purpose and profit of the corporation. In addition, even if part of the funds acquired by the Plaintiff in an irregular manner are raised and managed by a separate “non-party fund” from the corporation’s account, the corporation’s account is managed and used so as not to cause any loss to the corporation or its stockholders, and there is a duty to manage the corporation’s funds at any time by taking measures to recover the entire amount from the corporation’s funds at any time in advance. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff under Article 39 of the Commercial Act, barring any special circumstance.

B) However, Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, which was newly established by Act No. 5591 of Dec. 28, 1998, is not applicable to cases that had been enforced from December 28, 1998 pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda thereto, and have occurred prior to its enforcement (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da37071, Jan. 10, 2003). Defendant 4, 6, and 7, deemed a director under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, at least before December 28, 1998, are not liable for damages under Article 399 of the Commercial Act, namely, [Attachment 1]-1 to 124 total sum of the non-funds of this case, 20, 953, 389, 616 won. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

C) Therefore, the specific amount of damages borne by the Defendants is as follows.

○ Defendant 2, 3, and 8: 20,953, 389,616 won in the aggregate of Nos. 1 through 124 of [Attachment 1]

○ Defendant 2, 3, 6, 7, 8: [Attachment 1] Nos. 125 through 144 in total 1,750,951,000 won

○ Defendant 1, 3, and 8: [Attachment 1] Nos. 145 to 146, 711, 721,954 won in total

○ Defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 8: [Attachment 1] Nos. 147 through 154 in total 3,704, 901, 745 won

○ Defendant 1, 3, 5, and 8: [Attachment 1] Nos. 155 through 156 in [Attachment 1] 600,624,345 won

○ Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 8: [Attachment 1] Nos. 157 through 160 in total 94,04,739 won

○ Defendant 3, 5, and 8: [Attachment 1] Nos. 161 through 162 in [Attachment 1] 300,501,040

2) Related to supporting the affiliate company of the instant case

A) According to the above facts, as a director or a de facto director of the Plaintiff Company (Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act), if the business outlook of the Plaintiff Company is uncertain and its financial status is extremely poor, the Plaintiff is obligated to take measures to make self-help efforts, such as immediately suspending its financial assistance and recovering the existing subsidies, or to take appropriate measures to prevent losses to the Plaintiff’s property by being provided with sufficient security to compensate for claims. However, in the event of additional funds, there is no possibility of repayment of support funds for Korea’s music Broadcasting, etc., in violation of the above duties, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of support funds after deducting the amount of compensation funds from the Plaintiff’s heir [Attachment 1, 721, 324, 762], barring any special circumstances, to the extent that there is no possibility of repayment of the Plaintiff’s financial support funds for Korea’s music Broadcasting, etc.

Furthermore, we examine how to deduct 10,470,000 won recovered in connection with the support of the affiliate of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff alleged that the above 10,470,000,00 won was appropriated in any way in relation to the support of the affiliate of this case. The above 10,470,000 won in the part where the deceased non-party 1, defendant 2, and 3 participated in the support of the affiliate of this case, and 2,470,000,000 won in the part where the defendant 6, and 7 participated, and 39,674,863 won in the part where the defendant 5 participated, and 39,674,863 won in the part where the defendant 1 participated, and 9,368,347,515 won in any way. However, according to the above 10,470,000,000 won was appropriated in accordance with the above legal appropriation of 4000,700,70700.

B) However, considering the scope of application of Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act as seen earlier, Defendant 6 and Defendant 7, who is deemed a director under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, are not liable for damages pursuant to Article 399 of the Commercial Act for the portion prior to December 28, 1998, i.e., [the details of unfair support] Nos. 1,400,000, 13 1,982, 369,861, i.e., [the details of unfair support] of the instant non-financial funds, i.e., [the details of unfair support] No. 1,400,000

C) Therefore, the specific amount of damages borne by the Defendants is as follows.

○ Defendant 2, 3, and 8: [Attachment 2] Nos. 1, 13 and 2,53,561,424 won in total

○ Defendant 2, 3, 6, 7, 8: [Attachment 2] Nos. 2, 3, 14, 15 in total 3,146, 95, 424 won

○ Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 8: Aggregate 12,51, 677,411 won in [Attachment 2] Nos. 4 through 7 of [Attachment 2]

○ Defendant 1, 3, 5, 8: [Attachment 2] Nos. 8 through 12 in total 13,059,090,503 won

3) As to the instant support for Korea-style Construction

A) According to the above facts, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, as the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, had a duty to closely investigate the financial situation, repayment ability, etc. of the Plaintiff’s lending or financing to a third party, and to prepare a reasonable recovery plan for claims, such as providing sufficient collateral, etc., but in violation of their duty, Hanra Construction has already been faced with serious financial difficulties, and even though it is aware of the final failure to repay debts, it is in the situation where it is insufficient to recover debts, it is not sufficient to take reasonable measures to collect debts, such as collecting debts issued by Hanra Construction (6 weeks where it has been provided with sufficient collateral) and have the Plaintiff accept commercial papers issued by Hanra Construction and caused the Plaintiff to incur damages to the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 8 and Defendant 2, the deceased Nonparty 1’s heir, as the heir, were jointly obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff under Article 39, 90, 94, 94, and 99 of the Commercial Act.

B) However, considering the scope of application of Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act as seen earlier, Defendant 6, who is deemed a director under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act, did not bear liability for damages under Article 399 of the Commercial Act with respect to the support of Hando Construction, which was executed before December 28, 1998. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant 6 is without merit.

B. Determination of the defendants' assertion

1) As to the creation of the instant non-funds

A) Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 (hereinafter “Defendant 2, etc.”) asserted that the instant funds were kept in cash in the Seoul Office of the Plaintiff Company. A significant portion of the funds were used in a place where it is difficult to use them for official funds of the Plaintiff Company, such as entertainment expenses, incentives for employee encouragement, and research and development grants, after obtaining a normal approval, and the network Nonparty 1 or the Defendants did not use the said funds individually. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have suffered losses due to the creation and use of the instant funds. However, there is no objective evidence to recognize that the funds of this case were used for the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendants (the Defendants are asserting that some of the funds of this case were used for the Plaintiff, and there is no specific amount or purpose stated on the specific amount or purpose). The Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants’ funds, who are appropriately responsible for managing the company’s funds, should not be deemed to have been used for the purpose of supervision and management of the company’s funds by omitting it from the accounting books.

B) Defendant 2 and 5 did not entirely participate in the creation and use of the instant non-financial expense, and ② Defendant 5, even if the responsibility for the creation and use of the instant non-financial expense, did not bear liability to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the creation and use of the instant non-financial expense.

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the representative director has a duty to establish a system to monitor and supervise directors' performance of their duties, and that the representative director is not directly involved in the creation and use of the funds of this case, even if the above Defendants were not the representative director of the Plaintiff company, as alleged in Defendant 2 and 5, it can be deemed that the above Defendants were not aware or neglected of the creation and use of the funds of this case within the Plaintiff company as the representative director of the Plaintiff company, and that the Defendants were not aware or neglected of the establishment and use of the funds of this case. In particular, it is reasonable to view that the large companies, whose management structure is subdivided into the duties of directors, and whose individual directors are bound to concentrate in a specific field, have a duty to prepare for the system to properly monitor and supervise the directors' performance of duties. Accordingly, considering the size of the funds of this case, the Plaintiff and Defendant 5, as the representative director of the Plaintiff did not have a duty to establish the funds of this case, the above Defendants cannot be deemed to have been aware of the aforementioned exemption agreement and its grounds.

C) Defendant 1, 6, and 7 used the name of “general affairs”, “general affairs”, “general affairs”, or “director,” even if the Plaintiff Company is not a director, but at the time of the Plaintiff Company’s use of the name of “general affairs”, “general affairs”, “general affairs” or “director,” but the Plaintiff Company became more than 10 persons in the position of general affairs, and they were merely officers in practical affairs without internal and external decision-making authority, and thus, they do not constitute a person under Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act, and even if they were to fall under Article 401-2(1)3(a) of the Commercial Act, they do not constitute a person under Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act.

① As to the point of view, Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act provides that if a person who is not a director executes a company's business by using a title in which the executive authority is expressed in itself, he/she shall be deemed a director and shall be held equally responsible for that person. Thus, as long as the above Defendants performed the Plaintiff's business as a managing director or a managing director, it shall be deemed that Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act applies regardless of whether the said Defendants had a decision-making authority equivalent to that of the directors.

② We examine the following points. Defendant 6 executed the disbursement of funds created by means of pretending to purchase foreign currency among the funds of this case, and submitted a report on the details and balance status thereof to the upper department, and delivered the direction of Nonparty 1 to the network Nonparty 1 in raising funds created by means of pretending to import raw and subsidiary materials, and in full view of the overall purport of arguments as stated in the evidence No. 17-22, 31, 37, 39, and Eul’s evidence No. 2-3, Defendant 1 and 7 signed some of the funds of this case in the statement of funds of this case. Nonparty 3 received a report from Nonparty 3 on the statement of funds of this case and the statement of funds balance of funds of this case, or reported documents to the superior officer.

Considering the above facts, in light of the fact that Defendant 1, 6, and 7 was in the senior position in charge of the financial affairs of the Plaintiff Company’s Seoul Office, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 1, 6, and 7 participated directly or indirectly in the creation and use of the instant non-financial funds, or at least passively implied in connection with their business. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the Defendants were responsible for monitoring other employees’ performance of business to the extent equivalent to the directors when considering the language of Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act or their status, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants were responsible for damages incurred to the Plaintiff Company if they were to have been involved in the illegal performance of business and knew or could have known of the fact that the employees were in charge of their financial affairs within the Plaintiff Company’s Seoul Office. In this regard, even if Defendant 1, 6, and 7 were not in charge of the creation and use of the instant non-financial funds and the Defendants’ aforementioned non-party 2’ non-party 1, 7 were not in charge of the aforementioned non-financial funds.

2) Related to supporting the affiliate company of the instant case

A) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the support of the instant affiliate was substantially extended in terms of the extension of the payment period of the existing subsidy, i.e., substitution, and that Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. had never been able to repay funds at the time of supporting the instant affiliate, so it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff incurred new losses due to the support of the instant affiliate, and the Defendants

살피건대, 앞서 본 사실 및 을가 제3, 4호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고가 제3자 명의로 코리아음악방송 등을 인수하거나 주도적으로 설립하여 실질적으로 경영한 사실, 원고가 이 사건 계열사 지원 이전에도 지급보증을 하는 등의 방법으로 사실상 코리아음악방송 등에게 자금을 지원하였던 사실, 이 사건 계열사 지원 무렵 코리아음악방송 등은 극심한 자금난으로 자금상환능력이 거의 없었던 사실, 원고 내부에서 작성되거나 원고의 의뢰로 작성된 문서들에는 대체로 원고의 코리아음악방송 등에 대한 지원규모가 ㉠ 1997. 12. 6. 현재 491억 원, ㉡ 1998. 12. 31. 현재 614억 원(어음할인 방식 지원금 364억 원 + 지급보증 방식 지원금 250억 원), ㉢ 1999. 12. 31. 현재 681억 원(어음할인 방식 지원금 481억 원 + 지급보증 방식 지원금 200억 원), ㉣ 2000. 5. 12. 현재 687억 원(어음할인 방식 지원금 487억 원 + 지급보증 방식 지원금 200억 원), ㉤ 2000. 6. 30. 현재 687억 원(어음할인 방식 지원금 522억 원 + 지급보증 방식 지원금 165억 원)이라는 취지로 기재되어 있는 주13) 사실 을 인정할 수 있다.

However, the above evidence and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding conducted on August 20, 208 on the same comprehensive financial securities company, i.e., the fact-finding response of this court, which was given to the affiliates of this case on August 20, 2008, as new support. Even according to the above defendants' assertion, the plaintiff changed the support method from indirect support method through payment guarantee etc. to indirect support method through the purchase of bills issued by music Broadcasting, etc. 14) with the change of the financial institution, and the plaintiff changed its purchase of bills to a different method such as replacing a bill with a bill combined with several recommendations or replacing one bill with several recommendations, and even if the total support amount was maintained in the process, it is difficult to find that the above defendants did not change to the obligation party of this case and actually move funds to the original financial company to the original financial company from August 20, 208 (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da163778, Apr. 27, 2006).

B) In addition, the Defendants (excluding Defendant 4) asserted that the financial situation of Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. at the time of supporting the affiliate company of this case, which led to extreme aggravation of the financial situation of Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. without the Plaintiff’s financial support, and that the financial situation of Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. may occur immediately without the Plaintiff’s financial support. Since Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. was inevitably supported by the Plaintiff, it was inevitable to minimize this loss, and at the same time, efforts were made to recover the Plaintiff’s subsidies from Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. to a third party to sell part of Korea’s music broadcasting business division to the third party and recover some subsidies during that process, the support of the affiliate company of this case was governed by

However, in providing funds to a related company without a violation of the law, if a director of the company sufficiently collects, investigates, and examines necessary information within the reasonably available scope concerning the degree of contribution to the business of the related company to the company, the amount of adequate funding necessary for the rehabilitation of the related company, the financial burden of the related company, the possibility of rehabilitation of the related company, the anticipated profit and disadvantage to the company, etc., if not supported by the related company, etc., are not provided, and accordingly, the company made a reasonable decision on its management in accordance with the company's maximum interest, reasonable trust and good faith, and the contents of the decision are considerably unreasonable, and the company's act is within the scope of reasonable selection in light of ordinary director's standard, even if the result was incurred later, the company's act is within the discretionary scope of the permitted business judgment, and thus it cannot be deemed that the company is liable for compensation for the company is not determined through such a resolution of the board of directors through such a process, and the company's act of preventing the company's management burden is not limited to 30130 directors's general and abstract profit.

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the support of the instant affiliate was conducted under a consistent plan to achieve the highest business performance, and as long as there is no evidence to support the instant affiliate prior to the support of the instant affiliate, in consideration of the financial situation of the Plaintiff and Korea Music Broadcasting, etc. at the time of support of the instant affiliate, and there is no evidence to deem that either of the support of the instant affiliate was conducted with careful and thorough review on the effectiveness of the instant affiliate support, such as whether the Plaintiff is more favorable to the Plaintiff, or endeavored to improve the business performance of Korea Music Broadcasting, etc. after the support of the instant affiliate, etc., or that there was no effort to improve the business performance of Korea Music Broadcasting, etc. after the support of the instant affiliate, etc., as alleged by the said Defendants, the support of the instant affiliate cannot be justified merely because Korea’s music Broadcasting, etc. was not supported due to extreme

C) Defendant 5 asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff could recover KRW 10,470,00,00 from the amount of damages to be borne by Defendant 5, because it was possible for the Plaintiff to actively recover the subsidies from the officers and employees who received one’s own instructions, but the said amount should be deducted from the amount of damages to be borne by Defendant 5. However, as seen earlier, the said amount is not repaid by Defendant 5, and there was no agreement or designation on the satisfaction of payments at that time, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 5’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3) As to the instant support for Korea-style Construction

A) Defendant 2, 6, and 8 asserted that, at the time, Korea Construction was an excellent condition in credit rating or in the aspect of business performance, some of security was provided, the default of Korea Construction was caused by temporary financing due to the IMF crisis, the government and financial institutions were demanding strong support from the government and financial institutions, other financial institutions were also providing support for Korea Construction, and the support of Korea Construction was decided and implemented at the modern group level, and thus, at the modern group level, the support of Korea Construction was decided and implemented in this case at issue, and thus, the so-called Business Judgment Rule is applied to Korea Construction Support and there was no liability for damages from the above Defendants.

However, as seen earlier, since Korea-Japan Construction Support had already been faced with serious financial difficulties, in consideration of the legal principles as seen earlier as to the cases where directors' act was exempted from liability for damages arising therefrom within the discretionary scope of business judgment permissible, the above Defendants should have examined more specific and detailedly and detailed factors about the plaintiff's losses and losses in determining whether to provide support for Korea-Ra Construction. However, even according to the above Defendants' assertion, the above Defendants' assertion cannot be accepted since the above Defendants' assertion was not followed (In full view of the various materials revealed in the argument in this case, the failure to provide support for Korea-Ra Construction was caused by the business expansion which was smoothly promoted before, and thus, it seems that the human relationship between the total number of the Hyundai Group and Korea-Ma Group and Jung Young-young plays the most important role in the Korea-Ra Construction Support.)

B) Defendant 8 asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the Plaintiff’s aid for Han Construction is KRW 3.1 billion, which is a loss caused by the discount of notes by applying the interest rate lower than the normal interest rate at the time. However, as long as the Plaintiff failed to recover part of the subsidies for Han Construction, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the aid for Han Construction was an unrecied balance out of the subsidies, and therefore, Defendant 8’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Scope of liability for damages

1) Damages

The Plaintiff’s damages arising from the creation and use of the instant non-financing, the support to the affiliate of the instant case, and the support to the Korea-do Construction, are as set forth in paragraphs (a)(1)(C), (2)(c), and (a)(3) of the same paragraph.

2) Limitation on liability

In a case where a director is liable for compensating the company for damages by committing an act in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or neglecting his duties, the scope of compensation for such damages may be limited in light of the ideology of the compensation system (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60467, 60474 delivered on December 10, 2004) by taking into account all the circumstances such as the details of the pertinent director's breach of duties, the manner of the pertinent director's violation of duties, the manner of the pertinent director's violation of duties, the objective circumstances involved in the occurrence and expansion of company's damages, the degree or existence of the pertinent director'

In light of the ideology of the damage compensation system, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability to Defendant 8, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5, respectively, and to 10% of the amount of compensation for damages, in consideration of the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not have a management system to prevent illegal performance of duties by executives and employees, such as the Plaintiff’s raising and use of the instant non-funds at the time; and (b) the Plaintiff did not have management system to prevent illegal performance of duties by executives and employees, such as the support for Hanra Construction; (c) the Defendants’ terms of office, position and performance of duties; (d) the degree of influence in decision-making; (e) the creation and use of the instant non-funds; (e) the support for the instant subsidiaries; and (e) the degree of participation in the instant argument, and other circumstances revealed in the argument, the amount of the Defendants’ liability should be limited to 70% of the amount of compensation for damages by the Defendant in the above Section 1; and (e) the amount of damages.

(d) Conclusion

1) The amount of liability for damages relating to the creation and use of the instant funds

Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable to pay 14,667,372,731 won (20,953,389,616 won x 70% x 70% ; hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable to pay 10,476,694,808 won among the above 14,67,731 won (20,953,389,616 x 50%) and Defendant 3 is jointly and severally and severally liable to pay 6,286,016,884 won (20,953,389,616 won x 30%) among the above 14,67,694,808 won with Defendant 2 and 8 until 207,207, which is the last copy of the complaint of this case, for the period from 10,007,000 won to 20,007.

Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable to pay 1,225,65,70 won (1,750,951,000 won x 70%); Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable to pay 875,475,500 won (1,750,951,000 won x 50%) out of the above 1,225,665,700 won; Defendant 3 is jointly and severally liable to pay 525,285,300 won out of the above 875,475,500 won (30% x 30%); Defendant 6,7 is jointly and severally liable to pay 1,225,305,300 won among the above 875,475,500 won x 200% of the total amount of damages for delay x 200% of the above 9% of the total amount of damages for delay x 25% of the above 9.7% of the Defendants.

○ Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for 498,205,367 won (71,721,954 won x 70%); Defendant 3 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for 213,516,586 won (71,721,954 won x 30%) among the above 498,205,367 won; Defendant 1 is jointly and severally liable for 71,516,195 won (71,721,954 won x 10%) among the above 213,516,586 won (71,721,954 won x 710%) and each of the above money, from the day following the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case until February 7, 2007, the amount of delay damages calculated by the above Defendants from the day following each of the special cases concerning the promotion of litigation until 2009.

Defendant 8 is jointly and severally with Defendant 8,593,431,22 won (3,704,901,745 won x 70%) Defendant 3,4, and 5 are jointly and severally with Defendant 8,593,431,470,523 won (3,704,901,745 won x 30%); Defendant 1 is jointly and severally with Defendant 3,4,50,490,174 won (3,704,901,745 won x 10%) among the above 1,111,470,523 won; Defendant 1 is jointly and severally with Defendant 3,49,174 won (3,704,901,745 won x 10%); Defendant 3,4,522% of the total amount of delay damages calculated from the date following the last delivery of the complaint of this case to the date of 200 days.

○ Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for 420,437,041 won (60,624,345 won x 70%) 180,187,303 won (600,624,345 won x 30%) out of the above 420,437,041 won and 180,187,303 won (60,624,345 won x 10%) 60,62,434 won out of the above 180,187,303 won (60,624,345 x 10%) and each of the above money from the day following the last day of the complaint of this case to the day of the full payment of 200,50,000 per annum under the Civil Act as to the existence and scope of the above Defendants’ obligation to perform the obligation.

○ Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for payment of KRW 695,803,317 ( KRW 994,04,739 x 70%) 298,201,421 ( KRW 994,04,739 x 30%) among the above KRW 695,803,317 x 5) and damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 7, 2007, the date following the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to dispute the existence and scope of the above Defendants’ obligations.

○ Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for payment of KRW 210,350,728 ( KRW 300,501,040 x 70%) 90,150,312 ( KRW 300,501,040 x 30%) among the above KRW 210,350,728 x 30%) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 7, 2007, which is the day following the last copy of the complaint of this case, to dispute the existence and scope of the above Defendants’ obligations from February 7, 2007 until January 9, 2009, and from the next day until the day of full payment.

2) The amount of damages liability for supporting the affiliate company of the instant case

○○ Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for 1,773,492,96 won (2,53,561,424 won x 70%); Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for 1,266,780,712 won (2,561,424 won x 50%); Defendant 3 is jointly and severally and severally liable with Defendant 2 and 8 for 760,068,427 won (2,53,561,424 x 30%) and for 760,068,427 won (2,53,561,424 won x 30%) and delay damages from the following day of the instant complaint to the date of final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case; Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable for 1,209% of the total annual damages from the day following this case to the 20th day of the judgment.

○ Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for 2,202,896,796 won (3,146,95,424 x 70%); Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable for 1,573,497,712 won (3,146,95,424 x 50%) among the above 1,573,497,712 won; Defendant 3 is jointly and severally liable for 94,098,627 won (3,146,95,424 x 30%) among the above 1,573,497,712 won; Defendant 6,7 is jointly and severally liable for 2,94,627% from the following day to the date of performance; Defendant 2,3,698,627 won; 314,695,92,924; 97% from the last day of the lawsuit; and 94.25% from the above amount per annum;

Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable to pay 8,758,174,187 won (12,51,67,411 won x 70%); Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable to pay 6,255,838,705 won (12,51,67,411 won x 50%) among the above 8,758,174,187 won; Defendant 3 is jointly and severally liable to pay 3,753,503,223 won (12,51,67,411 won x 30%) among the above 6,255,838,705 won; Defendant 2; Defendant 1 is jointly and severally liable to pay 3,753,503,23232,503,23232,171, 16717; and 30% of the total annual amount of damages for delay x 105% of the above 27.17.16

○ Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 for 9,141,363,352 won (13,059,090,503 won x 70%) 3,917,727,150 won (13,059,090,503 x 30%) among the above 9,141,363,352 won (13,059,090,503 x 30%) 1,305,909,050 won among the above 3,5,717,150 won (13,059,090,503 won x 10%) and damages for delay calculated from the following day of the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the 20th day of the above 207.

3) The amount of damage compensation liability relating to the Korea-do Construction Assistance

Defendant 8 is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 8 to pay 15,263,434,895 won (21,804,906,994 won x 70%); Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable to pay 10,902,453,497 won (21,804,906,994 won x 50%) and each of the above money from February 7, 2007, which is the day following the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to dispute over the existence and scope of the above Defendants’ obligations; 5% per annum under the Civil Act until January 9, 2009; and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the day of the final delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Details of the raising of non-funds: (Omission)

[Attachment 2] Unfair Assistance Details: (Omission)

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge) Jho Jin Jin Order

(1) From May 23, 200 to October 12, 2000, the Plaintiff deposited a total of KRW 28,500,000,000 in Korea-U.S. bank, and subsequently, to Korea-U.S. bank offered loans totaling KRW 28,50,000,000 to Korea’s music broadcasting at low interest as security.

Note 2) At first, 1,200,000 only was offered as security but thereafter, 240,000 shares offered as security.

3) Specifically, by applying the interest rate of 12% lower than 37.48% which is the normal interest rate, the Plaintiff provided 3,135,000,000 won to Korea Construction by discounting purchase of corporate papers.

4) The first indictment was filed for embezzlement with respect to the creation of the instant non-financial expense, but the indictment was modified in the second instance.

5) At the latest around the second half of 2000, the deceased non-party 1 and some of the Defendants were aware of the above problems related to the support of the affiliate of this case (see, e.g., evidence No. 17-42, etc.).

(6) The Plaintiff was offered as security the shares 1,440,000 shares of Hando Construction, but at the time, the value of 1,440,000 shares of the above shares was less than 10 billion won, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to pay 1,440,000 shares of Hando Machinery. As asserted by the Defendants, even based on the closing price of December 8, 1997, which was 21,200 won, the above shares were merely KRW 25,440,000,000 and do not reach the face value of the above commercial papers.

7) In particular, Defendant 2, etc., among the instant non-financial funds, the source of the use of the non-financial funds raised by means of pretending the import of raw and subsidiary materials, are only known to the deceased Non-Party 1.

In this regard, the defendants' assertion to the effect that, among the funds of this case, defendant 2 and 5 among the funds of this case, they are not liable for damages for the non-funds created and used in a foreign country for the treatment of work or disease. Meanwhile, since the defendant 5 was appointed as a director at the shareholders' meeting on March 24, 200, the plaintiff's non-funds of this case No. 147-150 on March 24, 200 (the details of non-funds No. 147-150 on March 24, 200), the defendant 5 cannot be acknowledged as the representative director on March 1, 200 and the fact that the defendant 5 was actually appointed as the representative director on March 1, 200 and started the business as the representative director on March 1, 200, since the defendant 5 cannot be acknowledged as the defendant 1's compensation liability for damages for the non-funds of this case from March 1, 200 to 314.5

9) In addition, Defendant 2 and Defendant 5 did not directly participate as above, and therefore, the assertion that they did not bear liability for damages is the same as the support to the affiliate of the instant case and the liability for damages related to the instant Hanra Construction Support. The determination on this is identical to the above determination. Thus, the relevant part does not provide any separate explanation.

10) Meanwhile, Defendant 5 does not provide a separate statement on the pertinent part because it can be seen as identical to the above determination, on the other hand, that Defendant 5’s assertion of exemption based on the above executive immunity agreement is the same as the liability for damages relating to the support of the instant affiliate.

Note 11) According to each of the above evidence, in the investigation procedure or the trial proceedings, Defendant 1 also stated to the effect that “it was aware of the fact that the instant funds were not involved in the creation of the instant funds, but was partially signed in the disbursement table of the instant funds, and Nonparty 3 received reports on the details of the disbursement of the funds and the balance of the funds each month from Nonparty 3’s head.”

Note 12) Meanwhile, Defendant 6, 7, and 1 have the same claim concerning the application of Article 401-2(1)3 of the Commercial Act as to the support to the affiliate of this case and the liability for damages related to the support of Hanra Construction. However, the judgment on this issue can be seen to be the same as that of the above judgment, and thus, did not state otherwise in that part.

Defendant 13) In this regard, it is difficult for Defendant 1 to reveal whether the support of the instant affiliate is an individual substitute due to lack of data and complexity of exchange. Thus, Defendant 1 asserts to the purport that if the support of the instant affiliate was not changed during the period when the support of the instant affiliate was conducted by ascertaining the changes in the total amount of support for the Plaintiff’s Korea Music Broadcasting, etc., the support of the instant affiliate should be understood as a substitute.

14) In such cases, Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. shall be able to repay existing loans with the purchase price of bills received from the Plaintiff.

For example, the [Attachment 2] Nos. 11 and 12 of the support of the instant affiliate companies were carried out to repay approximately KRW 16.5 billion loans granted by Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. from Korea and America bank as security of the Plaintiff’s deposit (see Defendant 1’s assertion). Accordingly, Korea-U.S. bank loses its creditor’s status. The Plaintiff is changed from the offerer to the creditor, and the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 16.5 billion to Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. or Korea-U.S. bank.

16) Meanwhile, according to the statements in Eul evidence No. 18 presented by defendant 2, etc., the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff processed bad debt of the newly purchased bill after supporting the affiliates of this case (Provided, That it is related to the circumstances after supporting the affiliates of this case, and that the bill purchased through supporting the affiliates of this case has been exchanged. However, the support for the affiliates of this case cannot be evidence of the past support. Meanwhile, even if the plaintiff processed bad debt of the newly purchased bill after supporting the affiliates of this case, so long as the bill was exchanged through supporting the affiliates of this case, the losses of the plaintiff due to bad debt shall be deemed to have been actually caused by supporting the affiliate of this case.

17) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had conducted management diagnosis on Korea Music Broadcasting, etc. on July 1998. However, even according to the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion, the management diagnosis is merely a circumstance to the extent that the Plaintiff would have been continuing to implement the business while reducing the scale of the business because the Plaintiff would have incurred losses in the already implemented investments when he/she simply renounces the business. Accordingly, the management diagnosis is not considered as a thorough and careful examination related to the support of the affiliate.

18) In other words, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the domestic and foreign management conditions of Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. have improved after supporting the instant affiliate, the amount that the Plaintiff could have recovered may be greater than the amount actually recovered after supporting the instant affiliate, unless Korea’s music broadcasting, etc. were unable to repay without the Plaintiff’s support.

(19) Defendant 5’s assertion to the effect that it is necessary to support the affiliate of this case even in order to prevent such disadvantages, since the above disadvantages pointed out by Defendant 5 are abstract and abstract, and it cannot be readily concluded that the above disadvantages are higher in comparison with and balancing with the interests arising from supporting the affiliate of this case. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant 5 cannot be said to be reasonable and reasonable.

Note 20) Detailed details are see each Note 3)