beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was a KOSDAQ-listed corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and selling electronic equipment and was de-listing around October 2009.
Manager D is the actual manager of the Plaintiff, and Defendant B is the person registered as the representative director of the Plaintiff from May 14, 2008 to June 23, 2009, and Defendant C was the financial director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) from 2003 to 2010 and was registered as the Plaintiff’s director from July 11, 2008 to February 19, 2009.
B. On October 14, 2008, KRW 160 million of the Plaintiff’s funds was transferred to the Gwangju Bank account (Account Number:F).
C. On the same day, Defendant C delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 196 million (hereinafter “instant note”) that is issued at the face value of Song Branch Construction Co., Ltd.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, witness G, and H's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants, while serving as the representative director and director respectively, provided the instant bills as security to the Plaintiff, as if they were infinite bills, and paid KRW 160 million to E.
Therefore, the Defendants: (a) arbitrarily paid and embezzled the money owned by the Plaintiff, which was kept in custody by means of discounting the instant bill, which is a financing bill, to E; or (b) by deceiving the Plaintiff as if the instant bill was a true bill; and (c) by deceiving the Plaintiff to pay the said money to E as security; and (d) thereby, are liable for damages arising from tort.
Preliminaryly, the Defendants were obligated to verify whether the instant bill, which was offered as security, as a director of the Plaintiff, was a true bill, while lending the said money to E, but due to his neglect of duties, paid the said money to E. Therefore, the Plaintiff suffered pursuant to Article 399 of the Commercial Act.