logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.03 2015나2030396
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendant D, E, and F in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of electronic, electric parts, and product manufacturing and selling business and listed on KOSDAQ. 2) The co-defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”) was the Plaintiff’s largest shareholder. From September 11, 2008 to October 16, 2009, the Plaintiff served as the Plaintiff’s representative director.

Defendant D, as the Plaintiff’s second shareholder, served as the Plaintiff’s auditor from September 1, 2008 to May 25, 2009, and as the Plaintiff’s internal director from May 25, 2009 to March 4, 2011.

Defendant E and F, at Defendant D’s request, served as the Plaintiff’s outside director from March 30, 2009 to March 4, 2011.

Defendant B, upon C’s request, served as the Plaintiff’s director from March 30, 209 to March 4, 201, and the Plaintiff’s representative director from October 15, 2009 to March 4, 201.

3) Co-Defendant G in the first instance trial (hereinafter “G”).

(B) On July 12, 2009, C decided to take over the Plaintiff’s shares and management rights. Since the date of the conclusion of the above management right acquisition contract, the Plaintiff was involved in the management of the company as a managing director, a non-registered director. (B) Defendant B, who was the largest shareholder and the representative director of the Plaintiff, had a claim of KRW 150 million against C, and upon C’s recommendation, he was appointed as the Plaintiff’s director.

2) Defendant D purchased 2,440,00 shares of the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s recommendation in 2007, and was appointed as an auditor to monitor the operation of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s investor. In addition, Defendant D had a claim of KRW 3,500,00,000, based on an agreement to repay the principal amount of the investment bond or the amount of the investment bond, etc. However, Defendant D had the Plaintiff’s auditor and director in relation to the collection of the said claim, and Defendant E and F had the Plaintiff take the office as the Plaintiff’s director. 3) The Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders as of May 25, 2009, amended the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation to take charge of the Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders and the convening authority of the board of directors, and the chairman

arrow