1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants and incidental appeal against the plaintiffs of defendant E are all dismissed.

2...

1. The plaintiffs' grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the grounds for incidental appeal by defendant E are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted by the court of first instance is judged to be reasonable in a thorough examination in light of the legal principles.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the following determination to the plaintiffs' assertion on the period of extinctive prescription of the defendant company's liability for damages, since it is identical to the part against the defendants in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. Since the extinctive prescription period of the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages against a third party by the directors under Article 401 of the Commercial Act is ten years pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act, it is reasonable to view that the extinctive prescription period is ten years when the company jointly and severally compensates for the damage to a third party by the representative director under Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case against the defendant company was brought before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the defense against the defendant company is without merit.

B. Article 210 of the Commercial Act provides that when a member representing a company causes damage to another person in the course of performing his/her duties in a partnership company, the company shall be jointly and severally liable with such member and Article 389(3) of the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the representative director of the company. Article 210 of the Commercial Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 389(3) of the Commercial Act is a special provision of Article 35(1) of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da103017, Jul. 28, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da77969, Feb. 14, 2013). Therefore, pursuant to the foregoing provision, a representative director, who is the representative agency of a stock company, committed an unlawful act in connection with his/her duties, is liable for damages recognized to a corporate corporation.