Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Attorney Lee Hy-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant) of the bankrupt Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, a lawsuit taking over the lawsuit of Yong-Nam General Financial Corporation

Defendant 1 and 14 others (Law Firm Taeyang, Attorneys Lee In-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 26, 2003

1. Defendant chi○○ shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from December 30, 200 to May 31, 2003, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant chi○○ and all other claims against the other defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ is borne by the same Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants is borne by the Plaintiff

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff, Defendant 1, 700,000 won, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, respectively, shall pay 500,000,000 won, Defendant 10, 11, and 12, respectively, with 300,000,000 won, Defendant 13, and Do Chapter 14 jointly and severally with Defendant 13, and Do Chapter 14, with 2,00,000,000 won, and 25% interest per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Claim against the defendant Dozoo

From March 23, 1978 to October 24, 1997, the above defendant served as the head of the sales division of the Yong-Nam comprehensive Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Ynam Financial Corporation") prior to bankruptcy. The non-party 3 was in charge of the financial transaction of several fixed deposit accounts opened and managed in Yong-Namnam Deposit, and it is deemed that the defendant led to the confession of the above amount by forging the written request for withdrawal of securities separately prepared in addition to the written request for withdrawal of securities normally prepared between July 23, 1994 and May 21, 1997, in addition to the written request for withdrawal of securities normally prepared between the non-party 3 established in Yong-Namnam Deposit, 35 times, by withdrawing the amount of KRW 2,479,00,000 from the account of the non-party 3 established in Yong-Namnam Deposit. Since the plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee, the above defendant is liable to compensate the above damages to the above plaintiff.

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, Defendant Dop○ is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 30, 200 to May 31, 2003, which is obvious from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 20% per annum under the same Act from the next day to the day of complete payment (the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment to the day of the above Defendant. However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision

2. Claim against the remaining Defendants

(a) Basic facts;

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the contents of Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 39, Gap evidence 72, Gap evidence 93-5, 8, 9, Eul evidence 1 through 6 are considered as the whole purport of the pleadings.

(1) Status of the parties

㈎ 영남종금은 어음 및 채무증서의 발행ㆍ할인ㆍ매매ㆍ중개ㆍ인수 및 보증, 설비 또는 운전자금의 투융자, 유가증권의 인수ㆍ매매ㆍ매출ㆍ모집 또는 매출의 주선, 외자도입ㆍ해외투자 기타 국제금융의 주선과 외자의 차입 및 전대, 지급보증 등의 업무를 영위할 목적으로 설립된 종합금융회사인데, 2000. 5. 24. 금융감독위원회로부터 업무정지명령을 받고, 이 사건( 이 법원 2000가합22908호 ) 소 제기 이후인 2001. 5. 21. 10:00 이 법원으로부터 파산선고를 받아 그 날 원고가 그 파산관재인으로 선임되었고, 그 후 원고가 이 사건 소송을 수계하였다.

㈏ 피고 1은 1998. 5. 14.부터 2000. 8. 22.까지 영남종금의 대표이사로, 피고 2는 1992. 8. 11.부터 1998. 5. 14.까지 그 대표이사로, 피고 3은 1986. 12. 10.부터 1998. 1. 7.까지 그 이사(전무이사)로, 피고 4는 1991. 5. 2.부터 1998. 1. 7.까지 그 이사(상무이사)로, 피고 5는 1998. 9. 9.부터(청구취지 및 청구원인 정정서에는 1999. 9. 9.이라고 기재되어 있으나 이는 1998. 9. 9.의 오기로 보인다.) 2000. 8. 22.까지 그 이사로, 피고 6은 1998. 9. 9.부터 1998. 12. 10.까지 그 이사로, 피고 7은 1999. 5. 29.부터 2000. 8. 22.까지 그 이사로, 피고 8은 1998. 3. 23.부터 1999. 5. 27.까지 그 이사로, 피고 9는 1992. 8. 11.부터 1998. 4. 6.까지 그 이사로, 피고 10은 1994. 8. 1.부터 1996. 5. 27.까지 그 이사로, 1996. 5. 28.부터 1998. 5. 14.까지 그 감사로, 피고 11은 1994. 8. 1.부터 1998. 5. 14.까지 그 감사로, 피고 12는 1998. 9. 9.부터 2000. 8. 22.까지 그 감사로 각 근무하였고, 피고 13은 1980. 9. 20. 영남종금에 입사하여 1993. 8. 1.부터 1996. 6. 30.까지는 업무부 부장으로, 1996. 7. 1.부터 1998. 6. 30.까지는 영업부 부장으로 각 근무하였으며, 피고 14는 1994. 4. 6.부터 2000. 8. 22.까지 영남종금의 이사(비상근 사외이사)로 근무하였다.

(2) Credit procedures for Yong-Nam Nam money

Article 16 of the former Merchant Banks Act (amended by Act No. 5750 of Feb. 5, 199) provides that "a merchant bank shall confirm the credit standing and asset soundness of the other party when it provides credit services." Article 21 of the above Act provides that "When it intends to select an eligible business entity (a business entity designated as a target of discount, trade, brokerage, acceptance, guarantee, etc. of bills) which is established by the Minister of Finance and Economy under the supervision of the business affairs of a merchant bank (hereinafter referred to as a "gold company") pursuant to Article 21 of the above Act, the merchant bank shall thoroughly analyze the credit investigation, financial structure and business situation and shall keep the result." Article 10 of the above Act provides that "a merchant bank shall autonomously evaluate the credit rating of an eligible business entity and determine its rating, i.e., self-credit rating, and shall be determined according to the credit rating determined separately by the Minister of Finance and Economy and Economy, and shall make efforts to apply a different rate of self-credit rating and commission."

On the other hand, in full view of the relevant provisions of the Organization and Business Division Regulations (No. 2) and the Review Regulations (No. 3) and the Review Management Guidelines (No. 4) within the Yong-Nam Nam in itself, the process of selecting an eligible business entity of Yong-Nam Nam is as follows (the above provisions were enforced from January 1, 1996).

(1) The credit investigation, analysis, and evaluation of clients, the selection of qualified companies, and other examination affairs, shall be administered by the examination division (Article 22 of the Regulations on the Division of Duties and Duties).

(2) The Review Board shall prepare a written approval or the board of directors' approval by internal investigation, analysis, and evaluation of review data, and shall prepare a written approval for review approval by duty, and shall send a written approval to the relevant department (Article 6 of the Guidelines for Review and Management) where approval by the Review Board is obtained in accordance with the written approval for review (the short-term finance business division, lease business, international finance business division, etc.).

(3) Customers shall be selected from among persons with a point of at least 50 points on a regular basis in accordance with the credit assessment criteria separately prepared, and shall be selected from among enterprises with a point of at least 40 points on a regular basis (Article 7 (1) of the Review Regulations).

However, if the existing business partner of Yong-Nam Nam is jointly and severally guaranteed, a newly established business entity or a newly established business entity, a business entity deemed necessary for the extension of the business affairs of Yong-Nam Nam, and other business entities specially recognized by the representative director, etc., may be selected as a business partner (Article 7 (2) of the Review Management Regulations).

The credit rating of the credit transaction agency shall be, according to the results of the examination, at least 70 in the case of an enterprise whose credit rating is at least Grade A or at least 50 but less than 70 in the case of an enterprise whose credit rating is at least Grade B or at least 50, in the case of an enterprise whose credit rating is at least 70 or whose credit rating is less than 50, or in the case of

Of the limit on short-term financial transactions, the maximum amount of monthly average sales x (60% in cases of a company with a credit rating Grade A: 40% in cases of a company with a Grade C: 30% in cases of a company with a Grade C: hereinafter referred to as a subordinate method), the maximum amount of assets x general average /100 (in cases of a floating asset surplus ? a dynamic asset ? a short-term loan ? a short-term loan, hereinafter referred to as the “mid-term loan”), x general /100 in cases of a loss caused by a loss of equity 】 comprehensive / 100 (hereinafter referred to as the “compact method”), 3 months in cases of a small and medium enterprise under the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, 6 months in cases of a small and medium enterprise under the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises shall be applied)

(4) The qualified selection shall be based on a credit investigation report, after determining the transaction conditions, such as credit rating, transaction limit, joint and several sureties, etc., prepare an internal approval or approval procedure by the board of directors, and notify the relevant customer of the results when the qualified enterprise is decided, and send a written approval under the name of the examination division to the relevant business department (Articles 6 and 7 of the Guidelines for Review Management).

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) As to Defendant 1’s liability related to credit handling to Samju Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Samju Development)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Although Defendant 1 had the duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in handling the credit as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes and internal regulations, Defendant 1 did not receive KRW 1,169,000,000 out of the credit amount provided by Yong-Nam-Namon development by violating the Acts and subordinate statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, etc., and caused damage to Yong-Nam-Nam in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Thus, the above Defendant is liable to compensate for the said damage in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

(1) The development of Samju has caused a net loss for the last three consecutive years on 195, 196, and 197. The total amount of paid-in capital (limited to 8,400,000,000 won) was impaired (the capital of a company is composed of surplus funds held inside the paid-in capital and surplus funds held inside the company, but surplus funds or statutory capital is impaired even if the deficit of the company is 1,00,00,000 won, and the legal capital is impaired completely). The loan exceeds its sales (in the case of 1997, loans shall be KRW 121,250,000,000, and sales shall be KRW 45,836,000,000,000). It was hard to view that there was a high rate of 700,000,000 won in the financial structure of this case x 10,000,00 won in the financial structure of this case.

② At the time, Samju Development had no existing credit amount of KRW 1.2 billion, and overdue interest was 167,671,231 won, which was 45 points C according to the comprehensive corporate assessment table (in case of comprehensive credit assessment information provided by analyzing and assessing all the factors affecting the credit standing of the company, such as corporate financial status, business prospects, and management ability, and indicating it as grade and grade and grade).

③ Ultimately, Samju Development took place on July 22, 1998, and in the company reorganization procedure, on May 31, 200, the company reorganization plan was approved to exempt the principal amount of KRW 48,000,000 from the above loan obligations, and at the present, it is impossible to recover the loans of KRW 1,169,000,000 including the above amount of KRW 48,00,000.

㈏ 판단

(1) Evidence No. 2, evidence No. 30-1, evidence No. 31, evidence No. 32-1 through 5, evidence No. 94-1 through 6, and testimony of non-party 1 as of December 31, 1997, Samju Development is KRW 17,080,421,00 for total assets as of December 31, 199, and total assets amount is KRW 195,518,318,000 for 197,437,898,00 for total assets amount is below KRW 00,000 for 205,000 for 305,000 for 205,000 won for 305,000 won for 305,000 won for 305,000 won for 405,000 won for 305,000 won for 305,000 won for 305,05,005.

(2) The criteria for determining liability for nonperformance by an executive officer of a financial institution are as follows (the same shall apply to determining liability of the Defendants in other paragraphs).

An officer of a financial institution has the duty of care as a good manager to a financial institution to which he belongs, and thus, he/she shall be deemed to have fulfilled his/her duty of care as an officer. However, in cases where a financial institution is liable for damages due to nonperformance against an officer on the ground of his/her duty of care in connection with a loan, even if the loan made by an officer was caused to be difficult to recover or impossible to recover, it cannot be concluded that the judgment of the officer who issued the loan was in breach of the good manager’s duty of care or duty of loyalty. If an officer of a financial institution conducts a loan examination in good faith for the maximum interest of the company according to appropriate procedures with reasonable information in circumstances, unless there is any significant unreasonable in the decision making process, the officer’s business judgment is within the permissible discretion and the officer’s duty of care or duty of loyalty to the company. However, in light of the above good manager’s duty of care, whether an officer of a financial institution has neglected his/her duty of care in breach of the duty of care as a good manager should not be deemed to have fulfilled his/her duty of care or duty of trust.

In addition, in the case of the liability for damages caused by the nonperformance of duties against the representative director or director on the ground of his neglect of duties against the corporation, the liabilities of the representative director or director on the performance of duties shall not result in any unrefied damages, etc., but shall take necessary and appropriate measures with the duty of due care as a good manager for the benefit of the corporation. Thus, only the result of the occurrence of the unrefied damages out of the loans to the corporation cannot be presumed to have occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da30465, 30472 delivered on December 23, 196).

③ However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, a pledge was established on the above loans of the Yong-Nam Housing Finance Co., Ltd. as security at the time of the instant loan (the total face value of KRW 2.3 million per share, KRW 47.50 billion per share on March 18, 1999), and over the 200,00 shares of Yong-Namnam Housing Co., Ltd. (the total face value of KRW 1.1 billion per share and KRW 133 billion per share) and the 200,00 shares of Yong-Namnam Housing Finance (the total face value of KRW 1.3 billion per share). At the time of the instant loan, the pledge was established on the above loans of the Korea Development Co., Ltd. 4, the representative director of Samju Development at the time of the instant loan, and in particular, the increase ratio of sales, which is an index of growth and activity, was 82.73%,73% of the total amount of loans of KRW 1,549,290 billion.

In light of the above facts and the circumstances, the form of financial transaction which selects eligible companies for loans and treats loans by determining the limit on loans is introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-term fund company, which is an operating institution, for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company. The restriction on loans to the relevant company is set within the scope and at the time it is possible to deal with discount according to the circumstances of the time. Even if the limit on loans to the relevant domestic company was set considerably, if the company is deemed inadequate after the determination of the limit on loans to the relevant domestic company, the company becomes at a reasonable discount within the extent. The establishment of the limit on loans to the company, which was established after the filing of the suit, is able to choose one of the above four methods, and according to the examination regulations on the establishment of the limit on loans to the company, the establishment of the limit on loans to the above four methods cannot be deemed to have violated the above four methods, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant violated the overall duty of due diligence or development of loans to the company.

(2) As to the liability of Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 with respect to credit management for the Grand integrated Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Large Comprehensive Construction").

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1 and 2: (a) as the representative director of Yong-Nam, Defendant 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 14 were directors, and Defendant 13 had a duty to take all necessary measures to collect debts in handling Yong-Nam loans as a working-level officer; (b) since February 1, 1996, Defendant 1 and 2 failed to comply with the statutes and the articles of incorporation or failed to perform their duties; and (c) were jointly and severally liable to compensate the Defendants for damages equivalent to the above amount; (d) Defendant 3, 4, 6, 8, 10,00,00 won out of the total amount of loans provided to Yong-Nam National Construction; and (e) Defendant 13 was jointly and severally liable for damages to each of the above directors’ respective acts of failing to perform their duties, and (e) Defendant 13 was jointly and severally liable for damages under Article 39(1) of the former Commercial Act, and thus, Defendant 13 was not liable to compensate the Defendants for damages.

① According to the financial statements and audit report of the 1995 Grand Construction, the Grand General Construction reduced the sales volume of 14,95,942,00,000 won, and the debt ratio of 443.5% which was 1,242.5% on 1994 was extremely weak, and it was difficult for the company to repay its loans due to its normal business activities. Furthermore, according to the audit report of 1996, the company's existence is doubtful. However, according to the company's audit report of 1996, the company's selection statement of 3.7 billion won which is the date of bill of exchange on 1, 1996 should be approved by the resolution of the board of directors on 26.7 billion won on 29.8 billion won on 1996, and the resolution of the board of directors on 29.7 billion won on 29.78 billion won on 1998 on 199.

② According to the provisions of Article 11 of the Operational Guidelines for Gold Metals: (a) even if the sale of unsecured bills was prohibited from guaranteeing the payment of gold certificates, it was in violation of the above provision on March 18, 1997; (b) in selling unsecured bills worth KRW 13.3 billion in total face value, it was required to guarantee the payment of each bill; and (c) each of the above bills was disposed of in default and thus, it was held that the purchaser is liable to guarantee the payment of gold certificates worth KRW 11,968,00,000.

③ Ultimately, in the process of the company reorganization, the company reorganization plan was approved to exempt the principal amount of KRW 3,393,000,000 from the loan obligation on March 29, 200. As of July 31, 2000, the total amount of KRW 16,915,000,000 including the above amount of KRW 3,393,000,000 was in a situation where the loans of KRW 16,915,00,00 were not recovered.

㈏ 판단

① First, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the resolution of the board of directors on the selection of a qualified company was made on February 26, 1996. As seen earlier, Defendants 1, 12, and 8 were the relationship between the representative director and the director after February 26, 1996, and were not involved in the selection of a qualified company on February 1996. Defendant 2, 3, 4, 10, and 11 retired from the Yong-Nam-Namon money before the selection of the qualified company on June 23, 1998. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion against the said Defendants is without merit in this respect.

② Next, as to this part of the defendants' assertion, first, according to the statements in Gap evidence 3-1, 2, 95-1, 95-1, and 6 with respect to the qualified company selection as well as the testimony of non-party 1 with respect to non-party 1,00 won of total assets as of December 31, 1995, 115,946, 410,000 won with total assets as of December 31, 1995, total liabilities of KRW 107,310,105,105, total assets of KRW 8,636,300,000 with total assets of KRW 81,903,849,000 with total assets of KRW 67,432,698,000 with total assets of KRW 700,000 with total assets of KRW 850,000 with total damages of KRW 14,942,305,00.

On the other hand, if the evidence and the witness testimony of the non-party 5 revealed the purport of the entire pleadings, among the methods of calculating the limit on loans which are to be issued at the time of the loan in this case, the lending limit amount to 7,097,84,000 won, and 16,858,174,000 won, in the case of culc methods, within the scope of the lending limit. The fact that the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, a representative director of the large-scale Construction, and the Daegu department store (hereinafter referred to as the " Daegu department store") were jointly and severally surety for the above lending obligations is acknowledged, and it is difficult to determine that the above financial transaction form of the above company selecting the lending company eligible for loans and determining the lending limit to the above company's loans to the extent that it is difficult to determine the lending limit to the above company's loans to the extent that it could not be seen that the above company did not have a reasonable business discount within the extent of its credit extended to the company.

Second, if we look at health expenses, Gap evidence 3-4, Gap evidence 95-7 through 20 with respect to the selection of qualified companies on June 23, 1998, and the testimony of non-party 1 witness, the construction of large-scale aggregate is 146,054,691,000 won with total assets as of December 31, 1997, total liabilities were 141,200,241,000 won, total liabilities were 4,854,450,000 won, total assets were 100,817,698,000 won, 115,85,82,800 won, and 347,700,000 won, 70,000 won, and 70,000,000,000 won, 70,000,000 won, 70,000,000 won, more than the above 7,

Third, with respect to the payment guarantee of March 18, 1997, Article 11 (1) of the Guidelines for Management of Gold Business provides that "No gold company shall issue a letter of guarantee or a letter of guarantee with the content of guaranteeing payment, or perform any other act for guarantee, directly or indirectly, when a gold company sells an unsecured bill." According to the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2-2, Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 10, 11 shall attend the board of directors on March 29, 197, and 1.3 billion won ( principal of KRW 1 billion, interest rate of KRW 3.3 billion, interest rate of 11 billion per annum, and 11.1% per annum) and there is a large possibility that it will be effective for the payment guarantee of the payment of the guaranteed bill to the defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 10, and 11 shall be recognized as the payment guarantee guidelines for the defendant 1, 1997.

However, according to the purport of the whole oral proceedings (the contents of the judgment attached to the records), it is difficult for the Defendants to take account of the above legal practice as a whole, such as trading practices at the time of the payment guarantee. Considering that the principal transaction partner, such as Yong-Nam, was a financial institution, and the amount received from such financial institution reaches 70% to 80% of the total amount received, and thus, its business base has no choice to be able to fundamentally shaken the financial institution's sales of commercial papers. The financial institution which purchased commercial papers, despite its knowledge of the limitation on payment guarantee in accordance with the guidelines for closed-end business operations, was ordinarily demanding payment guarantee against closed-end companies, and it is difficult for the Defendants to take account of the above legal practice as a whole to find it difficult for them to find that the Defendants violated the guidelines for payment guarantee as a whole at the time of the payment guarantee, and that it would have been difficult for them to find out that there was an increase in the existing payment guarantee practice and thus, it would be difficult for them to enter into such a new payment guarantee practice.

Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s remaining Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(3) As to Defendant 1’s liability with respect to credit handling for the Southern Past, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Past, Inc.)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1 has the duty to take all necessary measures to collect the claim in accordance with the statutes and regulations in handling the credit as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon.

However, on October 11, 1995, 195, the Nam Pagygian completely locked its equity capital on 1994 (?28,00,000 won), and the loan was higher than its annual sales, and the loan was merely 38 points merely its 38 points, and the loan amount, which is the discount of bill, was approved as 600 million won by selecting the Nam Pagyg as an eligible enterprise. In 1997, - 4,664,00,000 won, even though the deficit of the equity capital continues to increase to KRW 4,382,00,000,000, the loan amount was recovered as 1.5 billion won on June 23, 1998, and the loan amount was recovered as 1.5 billion won on 190,000,0000 won on 1.5 billion won on 190,000,0000 won on 19,000.30.4.

Therefore, the above defendant is liable to compensate for the above damages in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

㈏ 판단

First, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 was the representative director of Yong-Namon on May 14, 1998, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that he participated in the selection of an eligible business entity on October 11, 1995 is without merit.

Next, according to the health account, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 12-1, Gap evidence 49, 50, 53, 54, Gap evidence 96-6 through 12, the testimony of non-party witness 1, as of December 31, 1997, the Southern Preferred to as the total amount of assets as of December 31, 1997, the total amount of total assets is KRW 6,921,814,000, total amount of liabilities is KRW 11,304,123,00, total amount of capital is KRW 4,382,328,000, net income is KRW 2,282,532,00,000, 300, 300, 300, 49,70,000, 305, 30,000, 49,70,000, 305,000.

However, on the other hand, the above evidence and Gap evidence Nos. 51, Gap evidence No. 52-1 and 52-2, and testimony of non-party 5 of the witness are gathered to the purport of the whole pleadings, the pledge was established for 200,000 shares of Yong-Nam Nam-nam as security at the time of the loan of this case (the market price around June 1998 was 2,000 won or 3,000 won per share). With respect to 300 million won out of the loan of this case, the above company kept bills from other companies, and the above company prepared a plan for securing claims within the scope of the limit. In addition, in consideration of the fact that the above company's 300 million won out of the loan of this case was kept, the non-party 7 who is the representative director of the Southern Dok-ri and the non-party 8, who is the director, the director, and the amount of the above 500 billion won loan limit is 60% increase of the above loan limit.

In this fact, the form of financial transaction which selects eligible loan companies and treats credit by determining the loan limit is introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-end company, which is the operating institution, for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit for the relevant company is set within the scope of the lending limit and at the same time at the time. Even if the lending limit for the relevant domestic company was set considerably, if the company is deemed inadequate, the company will be treated at a reasonable rate within the scope of the lending limit. Under the examination regulations of the establishment of the lending limit, it is possible to select one of the above four methods. Among them, the lending limit cannot be deemed to have violated the above four methods, and the establishment of lending limit for the above company cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of due diligence and 4% of the average repayment rate, which is more than the above 14% of the loan increase in the remaining 4% of the average repayment rate than the above 4% of the loan increase in the remaining 60% of the average repayment rate.

(4) As to the liability of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 10 with respect to credit management of forest housing (hereinafter “forest housing”)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 2, as the representative director of Yong-Nam, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, as a director, have the duty to take all necessary measures to recover the claim in accordance with Acts and subordinate statutes and internal regulations in handling the credit of Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Jon, but, as seen below, by doing unlawful acts such as violating the Acts and subordinate statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties in handling the credit of the forest housing on June 24, 1997, and thereby doing so, he did not receive 3,791,00,000 won out of the credit amount provided to the forest housing, thereby causing damage to Yong-Nam-Nam-gu. Accordingly, the above Defendants are liable to compensate for the said damage in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 10 neglected his duty as the auditor of Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Jon-gu, and thus, Defendant 10 is jointly and severally liable with other Defendants under this paragraph.

① According to the financial statements of 195, the forest house increased the financial burden rate (financial expenses x 100, and 100, and 11.9% from October 7, 1995 to 11.9% from October 1995 to 196. It was extremely weak financial structure such as the debt ratio increased from August 7, 1995 to 96.7% from 1995 to 38% from June 24, 1997, and it was difficult to repay the loan as a normal business activity. Despite the fact that the credit limit amount was increased to KRW 1 billion from June 24, 1997 to the total amount of KRW 6.5 billion from August 198, 198, the total amount of loan extended to KRW 6.5 billion from September 28, 1998.

② However, the forest house was regulated as the red trading office on February 23, 1998, and was in an unrecoverable state of KRW 3,791,00,000 as of July 31, 200.

㈏ 판단

According to Gap evidence 5-1, 2, and Gap evidence 5-1, 55-1 to 6, the forest house is 68,797,47,000 won in total as of December 31, 1996, total amount of assets is 62,286,65,000 won in total, total amount of assets is 62,510,82,000 won in total, the debt ratio is 956.7% in 1996, the loan is 50,160,734,000 won in sales amount is 40,148,78,000 won in total, and the credit rating is 38,000 won in total, and the total amount of assets is 60,000 won in total,00 won in sales amount is 1,50,000 won in total and 306,74,000 won in total sales amount is 50,000 won in total sales amount.

However, the above evidence and evidence No. 1, 2, 57, 58, Gap evidence No. 59-1, 600 million won or less, and 1, 2, 97-1, or 5 of the evidence No. 97, or 1, 300,000 won or less, were 60 million won or less in the order of 1,50,000 won for the above credit No. 1,50,000 won or less for the above credit No. 1,50,000 won or less for the above credit No. 2, 3,000,000 won or less for the above credit No. 1,50,000 won or more for the above credit No. 2,50,000 won or more for the above credit No. 1,500,000 won, or 9,000 won or more for the above credit No. 2,500,000 won or more for the above credit No. 1,963000 million won.

In this fact, the Plaintiff’s eligible loan companies are selected and the form of financial transaction which deals with loans by setting the lending limit to the Plaintiff’s lending limit is introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-end company, which is an operating institution, for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit for the relevant company is set within the scope and at the same time the company handled discount according to the circumstances of the time. Even if the lending limit for the relevant domestic company was set considerably insufficient, if the company is deemed to be inadequate, the company will be given an appropriate discount within the scope. Under the examination regulations for the establishment of lending limit, one of the above four methods can be selected, and if the lending limit is set, one of the above four methods can be deemed to have violated the above four methods, and the establishment of lending limit to the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of examination of Yongnam-gu's loans, and the Defendants cannot be viewed to have exercised the duty of due diligence and 97 reasons for the above lending limit, since it cannot be seen to have been in violation of the duty of examination of loans from the above 97-type loans.

(5) As to the liability of Defendant 1, Defendant 5, and Defendant 12 with respect to credit management for Seoba Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sbaba”)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, and Defendant 5, as the director of Yong-Nam-Namon, had the duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in accordance with the statutes and regulations as well as internal regulations. However, in handling credit to Yong-Nam on May 29, 200, Defendant 1 was unable to receive 17,161,00,000 won out of the credit amount provided to Yong-Nam Nam-Nam Nam-Nam due to an illegal act, such as violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, and thereby, caused damage to Yong-Nam-Nam in the above amount. Thus, the above Defendants are jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 12 neglected to perform its duty to correct and supervise the above error as the auditor of Yong-Nam-Namon, and thus, Defendant 12 is jointly and severally liable with the above Defendants under Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act.

① According to the financial statements of 197, the letter set the lending limit of KRW 5 billion, which is the discount rate of KRW 65.4% from 665.4% from 1996 to KRW 850.5% from 1997, and the financial expenses (gold KRW 17,607,00,000) exceed operating income (gold KRW 17,287,000), and it was difficult for Defendant 5 to repay loans for normal business activities due to extremely weak financial structure. However, it was difficult for Defendant 5 to continue to use the lending limit of KRW 100,000,000, which is the discount rate of KRW 500,000,000 from July 3, 1998 without taking sufficient measures for preserving claims by a resolution of the Credit Review Committee, but it was impossible to use the lending limit of KRW 200,000,000,000,000 for a temporary loan of KRW 100,000.4.

However, on May 200, Seocho participated in the subscription to new shares of Yong-Nam amounting to five billion won out of the above loans. This is an act of violating the laws and regulations, such as the Regulation on the Supervision of the Closing Bank and the Closing Bank of Korea, in which the amount of loans to Yong-Nam Nam has increased by illegal means against the letter, and the owner who made a loan with increased contents has participated in the subscription to new shares with the loan of Yong-Namnam as a result of the loan.

② The letter obtained the approval decision of composition on November 18, 1998 and came to be in an irrecoverable state of KRW 17,161,00,000 as of July 31, 200.

㈏ 판단

First, as seen earlier, Defendant 5 was appointed as a director of Yong-Namon on September 9, 1998 and did not participate as a director on July 21, 1998; July 30, 1998; August 10, 1998; and Defendant 5 did not participate on the part of the auditor at the time of the resolution on the increase of the temporary limit (the copy of the register of Yong-Namon was recorded as a manager around February 1998; Defendant 5 took part in the resolution of the Credit Review Committee on August 10, 1998; however, Defendant 1 did not have any evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 5 had been in the position of director on July 21, 1998; Defendant 1 cannot be held liable on the ground that the Plaintiff was not liable on the part of the auditor on July 30, 1998; Defendant 1 cannot be held liable on the ground that the Plaintiff had already taken office on the part of the auditor on July 19, 1998.

Next, Article 17-2(3) of the current Merchant Banks Act (amended by Act No. 6205, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a closed gold company may not offer credit to purchase the relevant closed gold company's shares, and Article 23(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the current Merchant Banks Act (amended by Act No. 6205, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that a closed gold company shall not offer credit to the above Defendants for the purpose of purchasing the current closed gold company's shares, and that a closed gold company shall not offer loans for the purpose of purchasing the pertinent closed gold company's shares, regardless of its direct and indirect nature, as the closed gold company's loans were established by the Financial Supervisory Commission's prior to the establishment of a reasonable causal relation between the Plaintiff's establishment of loans and the 20th anniversary of its completion of its business or its completion of its duties. As such, the above Defendants' health bond and the Plaintiff's share payment limit shall not be accepted.

Next, according to Gap evidence 6-1 to 5 and non-party 1's testimony, Gap's total assets amounting to KRW 271,370,76,00 as of December 31, 1997, total assets amounting to KRW 242,820,082,00, total assets amounting to KRW 28,50,684,000, total assets amounting to KRW 173,984,541, total assets amounting to KRW 190,323,84,000, KRW 190,000,000,000 won, or KRW 9.7 billion,000,000,000 won was 1.7 billion,000,000,000 won, or KRW 9.7 billion,000,0000,000,000 won was 1.7 billion,000,000 won.

However, on the other hand, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 61, 62, Gap evidence Nos. 63-2, Gap evidence Nos. 64, Gap evidence Nos. 98-1 through 23, and non-party Nos. 5's testimony have been traded since the 1970's. On July 3, 1998, 60,00 shares of Yong-Nam-Nam's 60,00 (a total face value of 3 billion won, 00,000 won, 1,000 won, 40,000 won, 70,000 won, 70,000 won, 50,000 won, 60,000 won, 70,000 won, 50,000 won, 1,000 won, 490,6333 won, 130,000 won, 197.

In light of the above facts and the circumstances, the lending limit was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-end gold company, which is an operating institution, for the prompt and short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit was set within the scope of the lending limit and at the same time at a discount according to the time. Even if the lending limit was set considerably for the domestic company, if the company is deemed inadequate, the company will be treated at a reasonable discount within the scope of the lending limit. According to the examination regulations on the establishment of lending limit, the company can select one of the above four methods, and if the lending limit was established, it cannot be deemed that the establishment of lending limit was in violation of the above four methods, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendants breached their duty of care and good faith, and thus, it cannot be viewed that some of the lending limit was impossible to collect the above loans due to the Plaintiff's failure to collect the above loans due to its violation of the terms and conditions of the lending limit.

(6) As to the liability of Defendant 2,3,4,10 with respect to credit treatment to the same sea pulse corporation (hereinafter referred to as the same sea pulse corporation)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 2, as the representative director of Yong-Nam Pule Co., Ltd., Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, as a director, have the duty to take all necessary measures to recover the claim in accordance with the statutes and regulations in handling the Yong-Nam Fule’s credit. However, on June 2, 1998, Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable with the Defendants under Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, since he did not receive KRW 1,862,00,00 out of the credit amount provided to Yong-Nam Pule because he did not receive KRW 1,862,00,00,000 from the credit amount provided to Yong-Nam Pule, thereby incurring damages equivalent to the above amount. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 10 neglected his duty to supervise the above error as the auditor of Yong-Nam Fule Pul, thereby neglecting his duty to compensate for damages.

① According to the financial statements of the East Pulp’s 196, the sales of the same Pulp sharply decreased compared to the degree of 195 (230,498,00,000 won even on 195, 1996, gold 131,897,00,000 won on 196, gold 47,116,456,000 won as a result of the occurrence of the deficit of the paid-in capital (47,70,000,000 won). The amount of the operating fund was dependent on the loans in the state of capital diversing capital, and the amount of excess loans increased from May 2, 1995 to 7,493.0% on 196 to 196.7% on 196.4 billion won on 196.7 billion won on 196.3 billion won on 196.4 billion won on 196.

② However, as of April 15, 1998, the same sea pulse had defaulted on April 15, 1998, and as of July 31, 200, it was in a state in which loans of KRW 1,862,00,000 as of July 31, 200 cannot be recovered.

㈏ 판단

According to the statement in Gap evidence 7, as of December 31, 1996, he had a financial structure as alleged by the plaintiff as of December 31, 1996. On June 2, 1997, the Lulp Pulp had a financial structure as stated by the plaintiff, and in the certificate of a qualified business entity on June 2, 1997, the sales amount has decreased to 42% compared with electricity, and accordingly the cost burden has increased rapidly, the overall financial structure of large ordinary persons has been weak, and the large business shortage funds are dependent on external loans. The debt ratio is 7,493%, and the financial cost burden ratio is 26.73%, and the stability and liquidity is likely to be significantly lowered, and the amount of credit limit, which is to be issued in the bill, is recognized as the amount exceeding the above credit limit amount to 4,396,568,000 won, and the amount exceeding the above credit limit to 1505 billion won,50 billion won, and 1505 billion won.

However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 65-1, 2, 66-1, 2, 3, 67-1, 67-2, 68, 68, 69, 9-1, 2, 3, 3, 15-1, 15-2, 1997, 5-2, and 65-1, 66-3, 67-1, 68, and 1, 69-1, 99-1, 2, 3, and 15-8, 300, 1997, 1997, 200 after re-examination of the limit of loans, and 306, 500,000,000 won of the above amount of loans, and 444,000,000,000 won of the above amount of loans, 305,000,000 won of the above amount of loans.

In this fact and paper companies, the form of financial transaction by selecting eligible companies for loans and setting loans is introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the gold company, which is the operating institution, to frequently determine the maturity or discount amount for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit for the relevant company is set within the scope of the lending limit, and at the same time the relevant company is treated at a discount according to the circumstances. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, if the relevant company is deemed inadequate after the determination of the lending limit for the relevant domestic company, the company will be treated at a reasonable rate within the scope of the lending limit. It is difficult to conclude that the above lending limit was not established in the above company reorganization plan due to the decline in international pulp price as a domestic pulp manufacturer, but the subsequent pulp did not have been paid in lump sum due to the difference in international pulp price, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the Defendants violated the above-mentioned company reorganization plan or the above-mentioned company reorganization plan's repayment limit, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the Defendants violated the above-mentioned company reorganization plan or its repayment limit.

(7) As to the liability of Defendant 1, 5, 12, and 14 related to credit handling for Sungwon Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Sungwon Construction)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Namon, is the director of Yong-Namon, and Defendant 5 and 14, as a director, have the duty to take all necessary measures for recovery of claims in accordance with the statutes and internal regulations. However, on February 22, 1999, the board of directors passed a resolution of February 22, 199 to provide credit to Sungwon Construction, thereby violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, and thereby causing damage to Yong-Nam in the above amount. As such, Defendant 1, 5, and 14 are jointly and severally liable for damages pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Commercial Act, since Defendant 12 neglected his duty to take necessary measures for recovery of claims in accordance with the statutes and internal regulations. As such, Defendant 12 is jointly and severally liable for damages to the above Defendants, who are the directors and directors of Yong-Nam on February 22, 199.

① According to each of the financial statements of the Sungwon Construction, Sungwon Construction depends on the operating fund for a loan as a result of the increase of unclaimed bonds arising from the invasion of housing games. The loans amounting to KRW 298,735,00,000 on 195, 465,869,000,000 on 196, 551,769,000,000 on 197. Accordingly, the existence of loans with KRW 53.7% on 195 [one of the loans / capital x 100, and the stability index among the valuation of financial items] increased from June 8, 1996 to June 9, 199; on 197, the loans amounted to KRW 29,000 on 190,000 on 19,000 on 190,000 on 19,299.

However, on May 200, Sungwon Construction participated in the issue of capital increase with the amount of KRW 5 billion out of the total amount of KRW 5 billion. This is an act of violating the laws such as the Labor Relations Act and the Labor Relations Act, the regulations on the supervision of payment of loans, etc., as it is the act that the amount of loans to Yong Namwon Construction increases by illegal means against the amount of loans to Sungnamwon Construction, and the amount of loans to Sungwon Construction is the act of violating the laws and regulations.

② On October 28, 199, the Sungwon Construction was decided to authorize composition and became irrecoverable as of July 31, 200, as of July 31, 200.

㈏ 판단

First, the loans of this case were extended in an unlawful way to the Youngnam Construction and it took part in the Youngnam Construction with the loan amount as the loan amount. Thus, the loan of this case was in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Special Act on the Law and the Regulation on the Supervision of Closing Funds. However, even if the plaintiff's assertion itself is based on the plaintiff's opinion, the above defendants' decision to set the credit limit was made on February 22, 199. The loan was made on March 25, 199. Since the Sungnamwon Construction participated in the loan of this case as the loan of this case and the loan of this case was made on May 2, 200 more than one year, and there is no sufficient evidence to prove the relation between the loan of this case and the participation in the loan of this case as the loan of this case (the plaintiff's witness's testimony of this case is not sufficient to recognize the loan of this case as the purchase of the loan of this case's stocks of this case. Thus, it can not be accepted to the purport that the plaintiff's purchase of the loan of this case's stocks.

Next, according to the statements in Gap evidence 8-1, 2, and 3 and the testimony of non-party 1 of the witness, Sungwon Construction is 863,628,304,00 won total assets as of December 31, 1997, total amount of assets as of December 31, 1997, 683,971,427,000 won total amount of liabilities, 152,656,87,000 won total amount of assets, 551,769,129,000 won total amount of loans exceeds 417,368,30,000 won total sales amount of 551,769,129,000 won and 417,368,30,000 won total sales amount of 199,000 won, and it is expected that there is a decrease in the total sales amount of 196,000 won capital increase due to the decrease of housing business as of February 199.

However, on the other hand, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 35, Gap evidence Nos. 78 and 79, and Gap evidence Nos. 100-1 and 2 are gathered to the purport of the whole pleadings, and Sungwon Construction is a comprehensive construction company with 44th priority in general construction capacity even on 1998, which is a five companies in the above construction-related four companies, and an information-related company with 10 companies, such as an information-related company, and an information-related company, with 5.98 billion won in total, and an enterprise comprehensive deliberation point was included in new interest group with 49 points. The credit rating was 49 points, and the non-party 14, who is a major shareholder of Sungwon Construction at the time, was jointly and severally surety for the above loans, and it is reasonable to conclude that the limit of loans, notwithstanding the negative opinion on loans No. 104, 3208, and the maximum limit of loans No. 100 billion won in the above credit environment, can be determined within the Seoul metropolitan area.

In light of the above facts and the necessity of the company's decision on the maturity or discount amount for the prompt short-term financing of funds, the lending limit was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-term company, which is an operating institution, to frequently determine the loan limit for the relevant company. Even if the lending limit was set considerably to the domestic company, if the company is deemed to be inadequate thereafter, the company will be treated at a reasonable discount within the extent. The company is jointly and severally guaranteed by its large shareholders with respect to the debt incurred from the loan, which is the bill discount, and according to the examination regulations on the establishment of the lending limit, one of the above four methods can be selected. Among them, the establishment of the lending limit cannot be deemed as violating the above four methods, and the possibility of the above lending limit cannot be ruled out in accordance with the above terms and conditions of the lending, and thus, it cannot be viewed as being unreasonable for the defendants to have determined the above loan limit or the above construction limit on its own due to the violation of the director's duty of due diligence or construction of financial resources.

(8) As to Defendant 1, 5, 7, and 12 with respect to credit handling for Bosung Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Bosung Development)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Namon, is the director of Yong-Namon, and Defendant 5 and 7 have the duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in handling Yong-Namon credit in accordance with the statutes and internal regulations. However, in handling Bosung Development on May 15, 1999, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to KRW 984,00,00,00, which was incurred by illegal acts such as violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties in handling credit. As such, the above Defendants are liable to compensate for such damages in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 12 neglected to perform its duties as the auditor of Yong-Namon who was the auditor of Yong-Namon. Accordingly, Defendant 12 is jointly and severally liable with other Defendants under Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act.

① According to each of the financial statements of Bosung Development, Bosung Development was completely impaired the paid-in capital amounting to KRW 3,009,000,000 on 1996, KRW 1,692,00,000 on 197, and KRW 1,493,000 on 198, and KRW 1,493,000 on 1998, and exceeded the sales amount on 1998.6% on 1997.3% on 1998.3% on 1998, and it was difficult to repay loans as a normal business activity due to extremely weak financial structure, despite its high credit ratio and the existence of loans, and it was difficult to have been registered as a new business entity with KRW 1,50,00 on 195,00 on 195,00 on 1995 on 194,500 on 1905.

However, on May 200, Bosung Development participated in the offering of new stocks of Yongnam amounting to KRW 500 million among the above KRW 1 billion. This is an act of violating the laws and regulations such as the Labor Relations Act and the Labor Relations Commission Regulations, as it is an act of violating the lending limit by illegal means to the development of Yong Nam Nam Nam Nam, and as it is an act of violating the laws and regulations such as the lending limit by illegal means to the development of Bo Nam Nam Nam Nam, the lending limit by making loans with increased contents.

② Bosung Development was in a state where it was impossible to recover KRW 984,00,000 as of July 31, 200, due to the occurrence of a default on February 1, 200.

㈏ 판단

First, the loan limit is increased in an unlawful way for Yong-Nam-nam development, and the state-run development participated in the payment of Yong-Nam-Nam-nam's loan due to increased loan as a result of its loan. Thus, this provision is as stated in the above, as to the assertion that the violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Regulation on the Supervision of Closing Bank and the Closing Bank. However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion itself, the above defendants' decision to set the credit limit limit is made on May 15, 199, and it was made on December 14, 199, and it was 6 months after the date of loan was calculated on May 5, 200, and there is no sufficient evidence to prove the relation between the loan of this case and the participation in the payment of new shares. Thus, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's claim that the loan of this case is related to the loan of this case and the shares of this case as a temporary loan of this case (the plaintiff's testimony of this case).

Next, according to the statements in Gap evidence 9-1, 2, and 3 as well as the testimony of non-party 1 as witness, Bosung Development was 5,371,080,000 won total assets as of December 31, 1998, total amount of assets as of December 31, 1998, 13,298,205,000 won total amount of assets, -7,927,126,000 won total amount of capital, 100,000 won total amount of paid-in capital, 269,293,000 won total amount of money, 2,718,382,000 won total amount of money, 35,000 won total amount of capital stock, 7,250,000 won total amount of loans to Gap corporation, 100,000 won total amount of capital stock, 35,005,000 won total amount of paid-in capital stock.

However, on the other hand, the above evidence and Gap evidence Nos. 73-1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 102-1 to 11, and witness testimony of non-party 5 are gathered to the overall purport of pleadings, and Bosung Development is an enterprise operating Bosung spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon spon 198, which is the major shareholder of Bosung Development at the time, and it is reasonable to set up 100 billion won-off spon spon spon spon spon 1000.

In light of the above facts and the circumstances, the lending limit was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-end gold company, which is an operating institution, for the prompt and short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit was set within the scope of the lending limit and at the same time at the time, the relevant company is treated as a discount according to the circumstances. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, if the company is deemed inadequate thereafter, the company will be treated as a reasonable discount within the scope. The joint and several surety was granted for the debt incurred by the lending which is the discount of the bill of this case, and according to the examination regulations in the establishment of the lending limit, one of the above four methods was selected. Among them, the establishment of the lending limit cannot be deemed as a violation of the examination regulations in the middle of the lending limit was established in the middle of the above four methods. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Defendants breached their duty of due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay due to the Plaintiff’s duty of due care.

(9) As to the liability of Defendant 1, 5, 7, 12, and 14 with respect to credit handling for the Eastern Development Co., Ltd.

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, has a duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in handling the credit of Yong-Nam-Nam-Namon as a director, pursuant to the statutes and regulations, but the defendant 1, 5, 7, and 14 has a duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in accordance with the above law and regulations, as follows, in handling the credit for the East-Nam Development on April 29, 199; and on December 27, 1999, as follows, he did not receive KRW 5,048,00,000 out of the credit extended by Yong-Nam-Nam-Namon development, due to his violation of the law and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties; thus, the above defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the above amount. As such, the defendant 12 neglected his duty to supervise the above error as an auditor of Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Namon under Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

① According to the financial statements of the 1998 East Western Development, Dong West Development reduced the amount of 45% compared to that of electricity, and increased the debt ratio of 2,690,000,000 won from 757.2% to 898.2% from 1997, and it was difficult to repay loans due to normal business activities due to extremely weak financial structure, such as loan sales, etc., even though it was difficult to do so, at the Credit Review Committee of April 29, 199 to increase the amount of 1 billion won for the discount of the bill of exchange at the date of May 21, 199 (the total amount of loans to be issued at least eight billion won), and on October 26, 199, the extension of the debt ratio of 100,000 won for the temporary limit of 100,000 won by the deadline on 29.24, 199.26.

On the other hand, Yong-Nam borrowed KRW 8 billion in total by means of a bill discount from October 7, 1999 to December 27, 1999.

② However, as of January 4, 200, the development of Eastwest was in a state of being unable to recover KRW 5,048,000 as of July 31, 200 upon the commencement of the company reorganization procedure on May 19, 200.

㈏ 판단

According to Gap evidence Nos. 10-1 through 7, Dong West Development, as of December 31, 1998, stated the total assets of 141,336,643,00 won, total liabilities of 127,177,197,197,00 won, total assets of 14,159,46,000 won, total assets of 899%, and the debt ratio of 97,425,894,000 won was exceeded 86,386,900 won in sales of 97,425,894,000 won, and the credit rating of 38,000 won in the company's comprehensive credit rating at C8, and 127,197,197,197,197,000 won, total assets of which was total assets, and 14,000 won in total assets, and it is difficult for the Defendants to gradually reduce the above financial profitability limit to 250% in its financial profitability.

However, on the other hand, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 73-1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 102-1 to 11 were gathered to the purport of the whole pleadings. At the time of approval for the temporary limit increase of 7 billion won on April 29, 199, the above temporary limit was already approved in terms of existing credit management. At the time of the approval for the temporary limit increase of 30 billion won, the above temporary limit was deposited in banks for government-funded construction, and the operating fund was temporarily required by the date of withdrawal of the deposit. At the time of December 24, 1999, it was reasonable to temporarily provide support until the date of 00,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won, 100,000 won, 30,000,000 won, 50,000,000 won, 16,000,000 won.

In light of the above facts and the circumstances, the lending limit was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of a gold company, which is an operating institution, to frequently determine the intent of lending maturity or discount amount for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit was set within the scope and at the time when the company is to be treated at a discount according to the circumstances. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, if the company is deemed to be inadequate thereafter, the company will be treated at an appropriate discount within the scope. The establishment of pledge rights as to the debt incurred from the loan, which is the bill discount, and the joint and several surety was received. According to the examination regulations in the establishment of the lending limit, the lending limit was possible to select one of the above four methods, and the lending limit was established in the middle of the above four methods, it cannot be deemed that the lending limit was in violation of the examination regulations in the middle of the above four methods, and it cannot be viewed that the defendants failed to collect the above loans due to the lack of reasonable reasons for the above lending limit or new extension of the lending limit. Accordingly, it cannot be viewed that the above lending limit cannot be determined in the above part of the company reorganization procedure.

(10) As to the liability of Defendant 1, 5, 7, 12, and 14 with respect to credit handling to Taen-Peum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Taen-Peumon)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, had the duty to take all necessary measures to collect the amount of credit in handling Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam, as a director, pursuant to statutes and internal regulations, but on August 31, 2000, Defendant 1 approved the credit limit of KRW 5 billion for the temporary credit limit of KRW 1 billion for the purpose of collecting the amount of credit (total limit of KRW 6 billion) as of February 19, 1999 without any credit preservation measure against the loans for the loans for normal business due to extremely weak financial structure, such as the use of the operating fund, etc., and the use of the funds for the loans for the loans, etc. without any loan preservation measure against the loans for the loans for the loans for which it was difficult to repay the amount of credit limit of KRW 390,90,000 for the loans for the first time on May 31, 199 (total limit of KRW 6 billion). Ultimately, on August 31, 200, it became impossible to recover the amount of KRW 390.

Therefore, the above Defendants did not receive 3,95,00,000 won out of the amount of credit extended to Yong-Nam Fail, by violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting their duties, thereby causing damage to Yong-Nam Fail. Therefore, the above Defendants are obligated to compensate for the said damage pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, and Defendant 12 neglected his duties by neglecting the above duties by neglecting the supervision as an auditor of Yong-Nam Facul. Thus, pursuant to Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act, they are jointly and severally liable for compensation with the representative director of Yong-Nam Fac and other Defendants under this paragraph, who are directors.

㈏ 판단

The evidence Nos. 11-1 through 12, Gap evidence Nos. 36, 37, and Gap evidence Nos. 103-1 through 27 are gathered to the purport of the whole pleadings. It was true that the debt ratio was somewhat higher on the basis of December 31, 1998. On the other hand, the credit ratio of the company comprehensive credit rating was 54, and the credit rate of the bill was 9,769,328,000 won in the case of the crypt method among the calculation method, the total credit limit of 6 billion won was within the limit of 19,538,657,00 won, and the ordinary interest rate of the company was 1,140,987,000 won, 253,403,400, and 360,000 won in the case of non-party joint and several surety loans were more likely to be established.

In light of the above facts and the circumstances, the lending limit was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-end gold company, which is an operating institution, to frequently determine the intent of lending maturity or discount amount for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit was set within the scope and at the time when the company is to be treated as discount according to the circumstances. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, the company is deemed to be inadequate after the determination of the lending limit, the company is to be treated as an appropriate discount within the scope. According to the examination regulations on the establishment of lending limit, one of the above four methods is able to select one of the above four methods. Among them, the establishment of lending limit cannot be deemed to have violated the regulations on the examination of lending limit, and therefore, the establishment of lending limit in this case cannot be deemed to have violated the duty of due diligence, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants breached the duty of due care to deny the existing lending limit by approving temporary lending limit, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the Defendants violated the above lending limit or its duty of care to collect debts.

(11) As to the liability of Defendant 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 14 with respect to credit handling for the Grand Island Co., Ltd.

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Nam, has a duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in handling Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-nam loans as a director, despite the fact that the equity capital ratio (equity capital / total capital / 100) is lower than 8.2%, and the existence of loans is so low as to be 6.1%, and the ratio of loans to total sales is 96.1%, and the ratio of loans to total sales is 53.1%, and it is difficult to achieve profitability due to the increase of the existing capacity of external loans to be created than the creation of cash due to 0.3 billion won due to the increase of the capacity of 0.7 billion won due to the reduction of the total amount of loans by 0.3 billion won due to the increase of the total amount of loans by 0.7 billion won due to the reduction of the number of loans by 19.8 billion won due to the reduction of the total amount of loans by 19.1 billion won (the total amount of loans by 19.8 billion won).10.10 billion won.

Therefore, Defendant 1, 5, 6, 7, and 14 committed unlawful acts, such as violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting their duties, thereby causing damages to Yong-Nam in excess of 17,80,00,000 won out of the amount of credit extended to Gohap Island. As such, the above Defendants are obligated to compensate for the said damages pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, and Defendant 12 neglected to perform its duties by neglecting to supervise the above mistake as an auditor of Yong-Nam Nam in accordance with Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act. As such, Defendant 12 is jointly and severally liable for compensation with the representative director of Yong-Nam and other Defendants under this paragraph, who are directors.

㈏ 판단

The following evidence reveals that the letter of credit approval issued on August 10, 1998 was approved by the resolution of the board of directors as of September 25, 1998, and the letter of credit approval issued on November 10, 1998 was approved by the resolution of the board of directors as of December 29, 198. As seen earlier, Defendant 6 retired on December 10, 1998, the above assertion against Defendant 6 was not well-grounded in this respect except for the liability arising from the resolution of the board of directors as of September 25, 1998.

Next, in order to recognize the responsibility of the above Defendants with respect to the credit approval of December 29, 198, the above Defendants at the time of the above loan approval should be recognized even if they knew, or have anticipated, that the above Defendants would use the loan in repayment of the loans to the large-scale commercial loan. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

In addition, as Gap evidence 11-12, Gap evidence 12-12-1 to 8, Gap evidence 104-1 to 33, it is true that with respect to the approval of the credit on September 25, 1998, the debt ratio was somewhat high as of December 31, 1997, and the contents of the plaintiff's assertion were stated in the letter of credit approval. However, it is reasonable to consider the above credit ratio of 9-1 to 33,393,324,00 won if it is difficult to secure the above credit ratio of 9-1 to secure the above credit amount of 9-100,000 won at the time of calculating the above credit amount of 9-2,000 won for the above credit amount of 9-1,000 won for the above credit amount of 9-1,000 won for the above credit amount of 9-1,000 won for the above credit amount of 9-2,005,005,00 won for the above credit amount of net profits.

In light of the above facts and circumstances, the lending limit was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-end gold company, which is an operating institution, for prompt and short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit was set within the scope of the lending limit and at that time the relevant company handled discount according to the circumstances of the time. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, if the company is deemed inadequate, the company will be treated at a reasonable rate within the scope of the lending limit. According to the examination regulations on the establishment of lending limit, one of the above four methods can be selected. Among the above four methods, the establishment of lending limit could not be concluded to have violated the regulations on the examination of lending limit, and the establishment of lending limit in this case cannot be deemed to have violated the above four methods, and it cannot be said that the defendants violated the existing regulations on the establishment of lending limit to the above four methods, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no reason for the defendants to have been an additional financial transaction facility for the improvement of productivity or non-performance of loans at the time of August 18, 1998.

(12) As to Defendant 1, 5, 12, and 14, related to credit handling to Mauls Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Maulsa)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Nam Nam-gu, and Defendant 5 and 14, as a director, have a duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in handling the credit of Yong-Nam Nam-gu, pursuant to statutes and internal regulations. However, Defendant 1, 5, and 14 have a duty to jointly and severally compensate for the above damages in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, since Defendant 12 neglected to perform its duties by neglecting to supervise the above error as an auditor of Yong-Nam Nam-gu with the representative director on March 29, 199 by the resolution of the board of directors on March 29, 199 as follows, he did not receive KRW 3,894,00,00,000 from among the credit amount provided to Yong-Nam Kim Jong-gu, and caused damages to Yong-Nam-Nam-gu as a director of the board of directors on March 29, 199.

① At the time of settlement of accounts on March 2998, 1998, e.g., net loss of KRW 861,189,00, the capital was destroyed, and the loan was extremely weak for its normal business activities due to the extremely weak financial structure, such as the loan exceeding its sales, and the credit rating was C grade because it was merely 35 points under the corporate comprehensive evaluation table. Of four methods, the loan limit was KRW 2,026,836,00 among four methods, even if the loan limit was set up, the loan limit was set at KRW 2,026,836,00,000. The above Defendants did not take sufficient measures for credit preservation by the resolution of the board of directors on March 29, 199, and loaned KRW 9 billion by the method of bill discount on April 2, 199.

However, around March 27, 199, the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Maspa from the Mas

② As a result, the Maulpha caused bankruptcy on June 26, 2000, which led to a situation in which it is impossible to recover KRW 3,894,00,000 out of the above credit amount.

㈏ 판단

First, with respect to the assertion that the loan decision of this case against the Yong-Nam Nam Saeung Saung Saung Saung Saak was made on the condition that it would participate in the capital increase with the payment of the Yong-Nam Saung Saung Saung Sari, there is no evidence to prove the fact of the conclusion of the above side contract even with the plaintiff's former proof, and it is necessary to clarify the specific date and time, amount, participants, and relationship with the loans of this case for the purpose of making the loan of this case as the "credit for the purchase of the paper gold." Since the plaintiff did not submit any material to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

Next, according to Gap evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, and 3, the total assets amounted to KRW 17,228,691,00 as of March 3, 1998, total assets amounting to KRW 16,072,98,989,00, total assets amounting to KRW 15,702,000, total capital amounting to KRW 2,000,000, paid-in capital amounting to KRW 15,912,245,00,000, and the loan amount exceeded KRW 4,053,672,000, and the loan amount was 15,000,000, and there was a significant lack of credit rating of KRW 16,00,000,000, 000, 000, 862,861,80,000,000 won, and 36,06,000.

However, according to Article 7 (2) 4 of the Review Regulations, if the representative director deems that there is no problem in securing the claims, it can be selected as a customer even if it falls short of the standard for review. Thus, the negligence by the above Defendants cannot be presumed to be presumed to be attributable solely on the ground that the loans exceed the limit of loans which are discount of bills. If the above evidence and evidence Nos. 38, 39, A No. 40-1, 2, and 105-1, 2, and 3 are together together together with the purport of oral arguments, e-mail was expected to grow to 13.85% of the sales increase rate, and 30 billion won was 13.85% of the above real estate at the time, and 70 billion won was 50 billion won of the above real estate at the time of lease, and 300 billion won was 50 billion won of the above real estate at the time of lease.

In light of the above facts and the need to frequently determine the intent of lending or discount amount for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company, the form of financial transaction by selecting qualified companies for loans and setting loans is introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the relevant company, which is an operating institution, for the prompt and short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit for the relevant company is set within the scope and at the same time the relevant company is treated at a discount according to the time. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, if the relevant company is deemed to be inadequate, the company will be treated at a reasonable discount within the extent. The company's joint and several liability for the debt incurred from the loan, which is the discount of the bill of this case, was obtained by the large shareholder and the collateral was set (the collateral value assessed at the time is KRW 1,106,00,000) and the opinion that it is unreasonable in light of such collateral value and the ability of the joint and several guarantor, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above Defendants violated the duty of due care to collect the loan or the duty of due to collect debts.

(13) As to the liability of Defendant 1, 5, 7, 12, and 14 with respect to credit handling to U.S. (hereinafter referred to as U.S.)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, was the director of Yong-Nam-Namon, and Defendant 7 and 14 had the duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in accordance with the statutes and internal regulations. Under the financial statements on 1998, there was no sales since 1994. Under the financial statements on 1998, net losses in the current year exceeded 123,00,000 won in equity capital (gold KRW 1,224,00,000), and the total amount of equity capital was completely destroyed. The credit rating was 39,00 in the corporate comprehensive evaluation table, and the credit rating at issue was 39,00,000 won in the case of a subordinate method selected by Yong-Namnam-Nam in the calculation method. However, on November 11, 1999, the credit limit at issue, which is the bill, was 47,557,000 won in the case of a subordinate method selected by Yong-Nam-Nam.

Therefore, Defendant 1, 5, 7, and 14 committed unlawful acts, such as violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation, and neglecting their duties, thereby preventing Yong-Nam from being reimbursed an amount equivalent to KRW 1,939,00,000 out of the amount of credit extended to the United States by Yong-Nam, thereby causing damage to Yong-Nam, and thus, the above Defendants are obligated to compensate for the said damage in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 12 neglected to perform his duties by neglecting to supervise the above error as an auditor of Yong-Nam Nam, and thus, Defendant 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act is jointly and severally liable for compensation for damage with the representative director of Yong-Nam and other Defendants under this paragraph who are directors.

㈏ 판단

According to Gap evidence Nos. 14-1, 2, and 3, although there is no sales amount since 1994, according to the financial statements of 198, it was recognized that the capital was completely impaired according to the financial statements of 1998, that the credit rating was merely 39 points by the corporate comprehensive evaluation table, and that the credit rating was C, and that the amount of 5 billion won borrowed by the method of the bill discount of Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Y, the amount of 47,557,00 won was considerably exceeded, and the financial risk was low even in the financial structure

However, according to Article 7 (2) 4 of the Yong-Nam Nam's Management Rules, if the representative director is deemed to have no problem with the preservation of claims, it can be selected as a customer even if it falls short of the standard for examination. Thus, the above defendants' negligence cannot be presumed just because the above evidence and evidence No. 41-1, No. 74, No. 75, No. 76-1, No. 77, No. 106, No. 106, No. 1 and No. 2 were stated in the above 0-1, No. 700, No. 97, No. 100, No. 97, No. 100, No. 97, No.

In light of the above facts and the financial transaction form in which a qualified company is selected as a loan recipient and which deals with credit by determining the loan limit has been introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed-end company, which is an operating institution, for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company, and the decision on the maturity or discount amount should frequently be made frequently. Thus, the lending limit for the relevant company is set within the scope and at that time the company is treated as discount according to the circumstances of the time. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, if the company is deemed to be inadequate thereafter, the company will be treated as a proper discount within the scope. The representative director and the financial structure of the company with good financial standing are jointly and severally guaranteed by the company with good financial standing, and the company's asset value of the established collateral was evaluated as high, and the company's repair work was completed, and the opinion was presented that it is unreasonable in view of the value of collateral and the financial ability of the joint guarantor. Thus, even if the above director or auditor's duty to collect the loan was not unreasonable, it cannot be determined that the Defendants violated the duty of due care to collect the above.

(14) As to Defendant 1, 5, 7, 12, and 14 with respect to credit handling for New Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "New Construction").

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, was obligated to take all necessary measures for recovery of claims in handling Yong-Nam-Namon credit as a director. However, Defendant 1, 5,7, and 14 had a duty to jointly and severally compensate for the above damages in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, since Defendant 12 neglected to perform his duties by neglecting to supervise the above error as an auditor of Yong-Nam-Namon by failing to pay 12 billion won out of the amount of credit extended to Yong-Nam-Nam in the course of new construction by violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, etc., by the resolution of the board of directors on February 10, 200.

① As of December 31, 1998, new construction continued to have decreased sales since 1996, there was net loss of KRW 37,749,710,000 as of December 31, 199, and the financial structure was extremely weak due to the increase in loans due to liquidity (the degree of safety that can be changed to currency without loss of the company’s assets at the necessary time). Moreover, the credit rating was C grade as it was merely 45.

Yong-Nam has continued to set the credit limit of 12 billion won since March 22, 1999 by selecting a newized Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "newized Co., Ltd.") as an affiliated company of the newized Construction as an eligible company.

On December 14, 199, when a new construction combines the newization, and sells assets (including business rights) etc. to Korea from USD 95,500,000 to purchase price, the said Defendants did not prepare any means to secure any claim against the above loans. Rather, on December 23, 1999, the said Defendants approved the acquisition of the above obligation from the new construction to acquire the debt of the above 12,00,000,000 won loans against the Yong-Nam Nam in the new construction, and applied for a request for the replacement of the new construction, while they knew that the above financial structure is weak as above at the time of the new construction, the said Defendants selected the new construction as the new qualified company without taking sufficient measures to preserve claims by a resolution of the board of directors on February 10, 200, and set the credit limit amount as 12,000,000 won.

However, on or around May 200, new construction participated in Yong-Nam-Nam's capital increase of KRW 5 billion out of KRW 12 billion among the above 12 billion in consideration of the fact that it was made around May 2000 (the time to participate in capital increase in Yong-Nam's capital increase of KRW 5 billion among the above 12 billion capital. This is an act of violating the Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation on the Regulation.

② Ultimately, the new construction was insolvent on August 7, 200, and on August 21, 2000, according to the company reorganization procedure conducted on August 21, 200, 12 billion won could not be recovered.

㈏ 판단

First, in the case where Yong-Nam Construction increases the lending limit by illegal means, and the main owner of Yong-Nam Construction participates in the payment of the loan due to the increased loan as a result of the increase in the loans, which is in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Regulation on the Supervision of Closing Bank, etc., this provision is as stated in the above. However, even if the plaintiff's assertion itself is based on the plaintiff's assertion, it is possible to accept the plaintiff's claim that the new construction applied for the acceptance of debt, and the new construction's application for the acceptance of debt is made on December 23, 199, and it is about December 6 months after the date of the loan was calculated as of May 200, and there is no other sufficient evidence to prove the relationship between the loan of this case and the part of the money participating in the payment of the new loan of this case (the testimony of the witness alone is insufficient to acknowledge it) and the relation between the loan of this case and the capital increase for new loan of this case as a result of the plaintiff's offering cannot be accepted.

Next, according to Gap evidence No. 15-1, 2, and 3's testimony, new construction is merely 397,807,061,00 won of total assets as of December 1998, and total amount of total liabilities is 317,818,086,000 won, and ordinary profits are - 36,204,075,000 won and net income was - 37,749,710,000 won, and it is reasonable to conclude that the above Defendants failed to take measures for new construction around December 14, 199 as well as new construction 9's new construction - 9's new construction - 9's new construction - 9's new construction - 9's new construction - new construction - 9's new construction - new construction - 9's new construction - new construction - 9's new construction - new construction - new construction - 9's new construction - new construction - - 9's new construction - new construction - 9's new construction - new construction - - 97 - new construction - - new construction - 9's new construction - - - 9's new construction - new construction 9000.

In light of the above facts and circumstances, the lending limit was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of gold companies, which are the operating institution, to frequently determine the intent of lending maturity or discount amount for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant enterprise. The lending limit was set within the scope and at the same time at the time to deal with discount according to the circumstances. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, if the relevant enterprise is deemed inadequate after the determination of the lending limit, an appropriate discount is determined within the scope. The joint and several surety was granted for the debt incurred from the lending which is the discount of the bill of this case. According to the examination regulations in the establishment of the lending limit, one of the above four methods is selected. Among them, the establishment of the lending limit cannot be deemed to have violated the above four methods. Since the new lending limit cannot be deemed to have been established in the middle of the above four methods, the new lending limit cannot be deemed to have been established because it did not have any possibility of collecting new loans due to the violation of the regulations on the examination of new lending loans to new construction companies. Thus, it cannot be seen that new construction companies cannot be seen to have been able to recover new construction companies at the time.

(15) As to the liability of Defendant 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 related to credit handling to Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 2, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, had a duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in accordance with the statutes and internal regulations in handling Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam's loans. However, the ordinary profit of KRW 275,479,00 was reduced to KRW 76,432,00 on June 996, and the debt ratio decreased to KRW 65,158,019,00, and the loan amount of KRW 31,730,575,00 was extremely weak in financial structure due to the extremely weak financial structure such as the loan amount of KRW 31,730,575,00,000, the principal amount of the loan was reduced to KRW 300,000,000 on June 9, 1997 (total amount of KRW 8,000,0000,0000 on the loan amount of KRW 10,000,000 on the loan amount of KRW 8.

Therefore, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 committed unlawful acts, such as violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting their duties, thereby making it difficult for Yong-Nam to receive payment equivalent to KRW 2,968,00,000, out of the amount of credit extended by the development of Yong-Nam, thereby incurring damages equivalent to the above amount. As such, the above Defendants are jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, and Defendant 10 and 11 neglected their duties by neglecting to supervise the above error as an auditor of Yong-Nam Nam in accordance with Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act. As such, Defendant 10 and 11 neglected their duties, they are jointly and severally liable for compensation with the representative director of Yong-Nam Nam and other Defendants under this paragraph who are directors.

㈏ 판단

According to Gap's evidence 16, Gap's loan limit's 1, 2, 3, and 4's each of the above 1, 2, and 108's each of the above 1, 108's statements, Gap's development took into account the above 76,432,00 won's ordinary profits and 93,00 won's net profits for 19.9%, the sales amount of 19.6% increased, and the loan amount's 80,00 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 1,60,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 20,000 won for the above 3,006.

(16) As to the liability of Defendant 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 with respect to credit handling to the claim corporation (hereinafter referred to as "claim").

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 2, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, was obligated to jointly and severally compensate for the above damages in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Commercial Act; Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, as a director, had the duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in accordance with statutes and regulations; however, in handling credit on the claim on June 11, 1997, as follows, by committing unlawful acts such as violating statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, etc. in handling credit; thus, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 were liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the above amount of credit granted to Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-si due to the failure to receive 4,451,00,000 won out of the credit granted to him. As such, Defendant 10 and 11 were negligent in supervising the above error as an auditor of Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam, thereby neglecting his duty to compensate for damages jointly and severally with the Defendants.

(1) According to the financial statements, audit report, etc. of the claim, the claim amount is high at 478.3%, 1995. The increased amount of loans (gold KRW 198,546,00,00) shall be 5.5 times the increased amount of sales (gold KRW 35,823,00,000). The financial expenses (gold KRW 71,385,000,000, KRW 79,287,000,000, KRW 79,762,000,000, KRW 1995, KRW 1995, KRW 767,000,000, KRW 1996, KRW 975,000,000, KRW 196,000,0000, KRW 976,000,000,000,000,000,0000 for loans and 97.6.

② Ultimately, the claim occurred on December 26, 1997, and the company reorganization procedure commenced on September 13, 1999. In the company reorganization procedure, the reorganization program was approved to the effect that the claim of KRW 1,692,00,000, out of the above loans, was exempted, and the total amount of KRW 4,451,00,000, including the above amount of KRW 1,692,000,000 as of July 31, 200.

㈏ 판단

According to Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, and 45, Gap's 1 to 12, Eul's 16, and Eul's 16, and Eul's 1 and 2's 16, which were non-party 1's 4, which were non-party 1's financial assets for the purpose of stable financing of the company's loan coverage, the defendants' 6,00,000 won were non-party 1's 1's 6,00,000 won and were non-party 2's 1's 6,000,000 won of loan coverage, which were non-party 1's 6,000 won of loan coverage, were non-party 1's 5,00,000 won of loan coverage, which were non-party 1's 16,000 won of loan coverage, and thus, it was found that the above 2's 16,000,00 won of loan coverage.

(17) As to Defendant 2,3,4,10 with respect to credit handling for the development of the requested industry (hereinafter referred to as “development of the requested industry”).

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 2, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, is the director of Yong-Nam-Namon, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, as a director, have the duty to take all necessary measures to recover the claim in accordance with the statutes and internal regulations. However, in handling credit for the development of the claim industry on June 23, 1997, Defendant 2 did not receive KRW 2,537,00,000 out of the credit amount provided to the development of the claim industry and did not incur damages to Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam, and thus, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 are jointly and severally liable in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Since Defendant 10 neglected to perform his duty to correct the above error and exercise supervision as the auditor of Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam, Defendant 1 is jointly and severally liable with the Defendants, who are the directors and other Defendants.

① According to the financial statements, etc. of 196 in the development of the claimed industry, most of the shortage funds due to the increase in inventory assets (gold KRW 11,325,00,000) were raised with loans, the debt ratio of 884.2% on 1995 increased to 1,221.4% on 1996, and the dependence on loans is high (7.6% on 1995, 1996, 61.7% on 1996), the financial stability is weak, and the loans of KRW 9,844,859,000,000 on 1996 were likely to be accompanied by the loans of KRW 5,859,00 on 199,00 on 194,000,000 on 194, and the loans were omitted in the financial statements, and thus, the loans themselves were not suspected to have been secured by the limit of 19.37 billion on 19.297.97.2.97.297.

② Ultimately, the development of the claimed industry occurred on December 26, 1997. After the merger of claims on July 13, 1999, the company reorganization procedure commenced on September 13, 1999. In the company reorganization procedure, the company's reorganization plan was approved to the effect that the claim equivalent to KRW 1,134,000,000 of the principal out of the above loans was exempted. As of July 31, 2000, the company's reorganization plan was approved to the effect that the above amount of KRW 2,537,00,000, including the above amount of KRW 1,134,000,000, was not recovered.

㈏ 판단

First, as to the omission of a loan of 5,859,00,000 won from the claim in the financial statements of 1996, the Minister of Health and Welfare, and the evidence No. 110-6 of the evidence No. 110, the loan of 1996, out of the loan borrowed from the claim column for the development of the requested industry, shall be acknowledged, but on the premise that the above Defendants knew or could have known that the requested industry development was borrowed from the claim of 1996, in order to hold the above Defendants liable for the negligence of not doubting the credibility of the financial statements, it shall be recognized that the above Defendants knew or could have known that the above Defendants borrowed the above amount from the claim of 1996. In addition, the letter of the selected goods of the qualified company, the note for the financial statements of the requested industry development at the time (No. 110-6 of the evidence No. 110-6) was presented to the above Defendants, or there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion in this part of this.

Then, according to Gap's evidence No. 18, Gap's evidence No. 46, Eul's evidence No. 110, Eul's evidence No. 16, and Eul's evidence No. 16, and Eul's evidence No. 23, Jun. 23, 1997, the court below's decision on the increase of loans was not new approval, but merely a reinvestigation of the maximum amount of loans. The court below's decision on the increase of loans No. 729,211,00 won as of Dec. 31, 1996 to establish a new financial transaction-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-based loan-related loan-related loan-related loan-related loan-related loan-related loan-related loan-related loan-related loan-related loan-related company's.

(18) As to the liability of Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 10 with respect to credit management of the claimed housing (the claimed housing)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 2, as the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 4, as a director, have the duty to take all necessary measures to collect claims in accordance with the statutes and internal regulations in handling the credit of Yong-Nam-Namon, but as seen below, in handling the credit to the claimed housing on June 2, 1997, by committing unlawful acts such as violating the statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, etc., and thereby making it impossible to receive 2.4 billion won out of the credit amount provided to the claimed housing, and thereby, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the above damages in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 10 neglected to perform his duty by neglecting to supervise the above error as the auditor of Yong-Nam-Namon, and thus, Defendant 10 is jointly and severally liable with the representative director of Yong-Nam-Nam and other Defendants who are directors of this case.

① According to the financial statements, etc. of 196, the claimed house raised most of the shortage funds due to the increase in inventory assets with loans, and the debt ratio of 683.7% from October 13 to November 28, 1997 increased to 842% from 1995, and the dependence on loans is high (5.2% from May 1995, 196, and 56.6% from November 28, 1997) and it is difficult to repay loans due to ordinary business activities due to extremely poor financial structure, such as the increase in financial burden. However, the credit limit was set at nine billion won without taking measures for credit preservation on June 2, 1997.

② Ultimately, the claimed house was due to the bankruptcy on December 26, 1997, resulting in a situation in which 2.4 billion won cannot be recovered.

㈏ 판단

If Gap evidence No. 19, Gap evidence No. 47, Gap evidence No. 48-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 111-7, Eul evidence No. 16-1 and 2 are gathered to the purport of the whole pleadings, the decision of Jun. 2, 1997 is not new approval, but merely a reinvestigation of the upper limit. The claimed house is now 2,141,172,00 won and its financial profit of 1,345,389,00 won and its financial capacity of 1,70 billion won and its financial capacity of 1,777 billion won were consistently stated in the company's comprehensive evaluation table, and its credit rating was set at 5.7 billion won and its financial capacity of 1,345,00 won and its financial capacity was set at 1,000 won and its financial capacity was set at 1,700,000 won and its financial capacity was set at 1,700,000 won.

In light of the above facts and circumstances, the lending limit was introduced in consideration of the characteristics of the closed loan company, which is the operating institution, to frequently determine the intent of lending maturity or discount amount for the prompt short-term financing of the relevant company. The lending limit was set within the scope and at the same time to deal with discount according to the circumstances of the time. Even if the lending limit was set considerably, if the relevant company is deemed to be inadequate after the determination of the lending limit, the company will be treated at an appropriate discount within the extent. The representative director, affiliated company, etc. was jointly and severally guaranteed with regard to the debt incurred from the lending which is the bill discount of this case. According to the examination regulations in the establishment of lending limit, one of the above four methods can be selected, and the establishment of lending limit could not be deemed to violate the above four methods, and it cannot be deemed that the establishment of lending limit cannot be deemed to have violated the examination regulations of Yong-Nam, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendants failed to perform its duty of due care or duty of care as a manager of the above company's house after the request.

(19) As to Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 14 relating to credit handling for Korea Steel Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Korea Steel”)

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 2, as the representative director of Yong-Namon, has a duty to take all measures necessary to collect debts in handling Yong-Namon credit as a director, according to the Acts and subordinate statutes and the internal regulations, as well as Defendant 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 (the director at the time of approval of an eligible enterprise as of April 25, 1997), and 14, as a director, to take all measures necessary to collect debts, but the following measures were jointly and severally liable to compensate for damages to Yong-Nam on April 25, 1997, with the approval of eligible enterprise as of July 29, 197, and with the approval of the purchase of convertible bonds as of July 19, 197, and with other unlawful acts such as violating the Acts and subordinate statutes and the articles of incorporation or neglecting their duties, and as at the time of the above approval of eligible enterprise as of July 22, 1997, Defendant 197, who neglected to take corrective measures and supervision as of KRW 197,300.40.

① As of the end of 1995, the Han Steel Co., Ltd.: (a) as of the end of 1995, the average credit rating was 43 points; (b) the loan was increased by 72.6% compared to the former; (c) the debt ratio was 3.4 times higher than the average industry; (d) the net loss of KRW 17,204,290,000 due to the increase of the sales cost and the increase of financial costs was high; and (e) it was difficult to repay the loan due to normal business activities due to extremely poor financial structure; and (e) it was difficult to repay the loan due to the increase of its stability and profitability, without taking necessary measures to preserve the claim on April 25, 1996.

② According to Article 20 of the Guidelines for Handling Foreign Exchange Funds, foreign currency securities (securities, such as government bonds, bonds, stocks, stock-related bonds, permanent bonds, and various forms of securities issued by financial institutions, indicated in a foreign currency), are in principle to ensure the stability and stability of investment and to enhance profitability in the gold financial market. According to Article 22 of the Guidelines for Handling Foreign Exchange Funds, foreign currency securities subject to investment are guaranteed by a foreign government or bank, or S&&P (or Mody) with a credit rating of BB (or 6) or higher from S&B (or Mody). Korea Steel did not receive credit rating from an international credit rating agency, and its stability and profitability have deteriorated due to loans, debt ratio, increase of sales cost, increase of financial costs, increase of financial expense burden, etc., but it was also purchased by a resolution of the board of directors on June 29, 196.

③ However, on January 23, 1997, the company reorganization procedure commenced on January 28, 1997, and the company reorganization plan was approved on July 27, 1999, and on January 17, 2000, the company disposed of bad debts of bad debts due to loans in the discount of notes, and on March 31, 200, the company disposed of bad debts of bad debts due to purchase of convertible bonds.

After all, the Yong-Nam's paper resulted in a situation in which each of them could not be recovered due to the approval of eligible companies on April 25, 1997 and the decision of July 29, 1997 on the purchase of convertible bonds issued on July 29, 199.

㈏ 판단

(1) On April 25, 1997, as to the approval for the selection of a qualified business entity

According to the evidence No. 20-1 to No. 4, Han Steel was 17.2 billion won as the profitability was reduced due to the dynamic price of Cho Jae-gu's main product and the increase of high steel price, which is a raw material. On 1995, the business performance, such as appearance of 89.9 billion won in the upper half of 1996. As of the end of December 1995, loans amounting to KRW 1.963.7 billion, net income amounting to KRW 17,204,290,00, and the ratio of debt amount was 845% higher than the average ratio of 185.1 billion, which is the business type ratio of 845%, and at the time, Han Steel was 20 billion won in the bill against the Korea Development Bank, which was the Jeju Development Bank's first financial right, and it was recognized that the financial situation of Han Steel was under the influence of the bill against the Korea Development Bank.

However, the above evidence and evidence were 80,81, 82, and 83 of the Plaintiff’s 100 million won increase due to the fact that the Plaintiff’s 100 million won increase in the above 7th anniversary of the above 100 million won increase in the 196th anniversary of the Plaintiff’s 1's 5th anniversary of the 196th 5th 5th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 196. 1st 3th 3th 7th 1996th 6th 14th 14th 14th 1.

(2) As to the decision to purchase foreign currency convertible bonds dated July 29, 199

First, it is alleged by the Plaintiff that no adequate credit rating has been established by a foreign government or a bank, or by an international credit rating agency for the Han Steel at the time. However, under Article 22 of the Guidelines for Handling Foreign Capital Transactions, foreign currency securities subject to investment can be deemed to fall under Article 22 subparagraph 5 or 7 of the said Regulations only on the ground that the issuer was a domestic bank or a non-bank financial institution (Article 4). In addition, if foreign currency securities subject to investment are a domestic bank or non-bank financial institution (Article 5) and other foreign currency securities recognized by the representative director (Article 7). The decision to purchase the said foreign currency bonds can be deemed to fall under Article 22 subparagraph 5 or 7 of the said Regulations on the ground that the said foreign currency bonds were proposed by Defendant 2, the representative director of the company. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the said Defendants neglected to perform their duties solely on the ground that there was no foreign government or bank guarantee

Next, according to the evidence Nos. 83-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 83, it can be acknowledged that the credit rating of commercial papers by the Korean Enterprise Assessment Co., Ltd. for the Han Steel has fallen to B + (B + was established as of August 3, 1996 by the Korean Credit Assessment Co., Ltd.). The financial structure of the Han Steel at the time was weak in terms of stability and profitability.

However, according to the above evidence, the financial institution that purchased foreign currency convertible bonds denominated in the issuance of the Han Steel can also recognize the fact that it reached 11 stocks, including the Korea Long-term Credit Bank, Seoul Bank, Korea Development Bank, Korea Exchange Bank, and Korea Exchange Bank. As seen earlier, the above facts are as follows: (a) the major cause of the financial situation of the Han Steel becomes worse; (b) the main cause of the Han Steel is anticipated to continue to provide funds to the Han Steel; (c) the company bond guarantee of the Han Steel under the first financial right after the decision to purchase convertible bonds was made; (d) the production of part of the Han Steel was made; (e) the company's profit was improved; and (e) the convertible bonds are able to claim conversion of the stocks after the lapse of a certain period; and (e) there is an interest rate higher than the interest income of the company; and (e) there is no special reason to determine management of the above Defendants' convertible bonds; (e) as a result, even if the banks discontinued additional loans to the Han Steel Steel and thus, it cannot be concluded that the Defendants breached their duty of due to collect its obligations or duty to collect.

(20) As to the liability of Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 14 related to credit handling in violation of the restriction on offshore financial transactions

㈎ 원고의 주장

According to Article 20-1 of the Foreign Exchange Management Regulations, the Minister of Finance and Economy’s "Authorization for Foreign Exchange Business, Establishment of Foreign Exchange Bank, and Conclusion of Foreign Exchange Agreements" (Documents No. 45607-290, No. 21-1) with a view to prescribing matters delegated by the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act as well as matters necessary for its enforcement. Under Article 20-1 of the Foreign Exchange Management Rules, Yong-Nam Nam is unable to manage funds for domestic enterprises and pure non-residents other than domestic subsidiaries and overseas branches for 2 years after the commencement of foreign exchange business (hereinafter referred to as “over-the-counter Financial Transaction Restrictions...........) No. 12 of the above Guidelines for Foreign Exchange Treatment (F.D. loan from January 1, 1996). No. 12 of the above Guidelines for Foreign Exchange Management (F. 2000). No. 96 of the loan agreement will be executed for the purpose of collecting the credit of non-residents or non-residents.

However, the borrower's MBF Att. and the MBF Att., a guarantee company, did not have any credit assessment conducted by the International Credit Rating Board, and the MBF Att. decided to purchase foreign currency claims equivalent to USD 5,000,000 ($ 80,000,000 in total assets, USD 16,000 in sales, USD 1,000 in sales, and USD 2,300,000 in the current net losses) in light of the financial status of 1995 ($ 16,000 in total assets, USD 16,00 in total sales, USD 1,00 in the current net losses, USD 2,30,00 in the current net losses) in light of the above amount of 195.

Ultimately, the MBF Card Lt. caused the bankruptcy from the insolvency of MBF Hring Berad due to the East Asian financial crisis on July 31, 2000, which led to the failure to recover USD 2,550,000 ($ 2,846,310,00) as of July 31, 200.

Therefore, Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 (the directors at that time), and 14 are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the above damages pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 11, as an auditor of Yong-Nam Nam money, neglected to perform his/her duties by neglecting supervision, such as correcting the above error. Thus, pursuant to Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act, Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 (the directors at that time) is jointly and severally liable to compensate for the above damages.

㈏ 판단

First, according to Article 7 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act (amended by Act No. 5040 of Dec. 29, 1995, hereinafter the same), a person who intends to conduct a foreign exchange business shall obtain approval from the Minister of Finance and Economy under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 11 of the same Act, the Minister of Finance and Economy may, if deemed necessary for stabilizing the foreign exchange market at home and abroad and maintaining the international credit of foreign exchange banks, impose necessary restrictions on foreign exchange banks such as setting a limit on excess amount for purchase and sale of foreign exchange banks, designation of methods of raising and operating funds related to foreign exchange business, and other matters necessary for foreign exchange banks' business under Article 19 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. According to Article 11 of the same Act, "temporary suspension of part of foreign exchange business authorized under Article 7 of the Act" includes "other restrictions necessary for foreign exchange business". Meanwhile, according to Article 3 of the same Act, "resident or his residence within the Republic of Korea and a corporation, and "non-resident and non-resident" refers to non-resident.

On the other hand, the Minister of Finance and Economy’s explanation of November 18, 1994 is interpreted to mean that the content of the official inquiry is limited to two years after the authorization of “foreign financial transactions”, and pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Guidelines for Handling Foreign Financial Transactions (Evidence No. 6) of the said Guidelines, “foreign financial transactions” refers to transactions that operate for non-residents by raising foreign currency funds from non-residents.

However, the transaction between Yong-Nam and MBF Card. is in the form of providing funds raised from residents to the above company, which is a non-resident. Thus, it is clear that it does not constitute a “over-the-counter financial transaction” as stipulated in foreign exchange management regulations (including the sale and purchase of over-the-counter loans, as loans to non-residents or other over-the-counter financial accounts). Thus, the above argument by the plaintiff on the premise that the instant transaction with Yong-Nam-Nam and MBF Card Ltd. between the Minister of Finance and Economy constitutes a “over-the-counter financial transaction.” Thus, there is no reason for the plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the instant transaction with Yong-Nam-Nam and MBF Card Ltd.

In addition, even if the above business restriction of the Minister of Finance and Economy includes reverse loan, it is difficult to interpret it to this meaning because it imposes certain business restrictions on foreign currency loans, etc.), if Gap evidence 21-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 6-B, Eul evidence 7-4, and Eul evidence 8-B, and this court's inquiry into the Daegu branch of the foreign exchange bank, the MBF C-Ttd. is collected with the purport of the whole pleadings, the MBF C-Td. is a company established in Hong Kong on September 192 by Malaysia to carry out the card business in the Asia-Pacific region, and it is not possible to conclude that the above company's MFF C-TB B-D company, a guaranteed company, was in violation of the duty of care of 90 branches from Malaysia to 20 financial companies holding 140 points at Malaysia, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the above company's MFF-related company was the largest director's non-public bank's non-public financial claims.

(21) As to the liability of Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 14 with respect to the purchase of foreign currency securities outside the country

㈎ 원고의 주장

According to Article 20 of the Guidelines for Handling Foreign Currency Funds, foreign currency securities shall be valued by ensuring the stability and marketability of investment and increase profitability. According to Article 22 of the said Guidelines, foreign currency securities subject to investment shall be a foreign company or non-bank financial institution (paragraph 6) which has obtained a credit rating of BB (or Mody) from the foreign government or the S&P (or Mody). The above Defendants in violation of 1. B.V. and Darma Ltd. 1.V. 90, the following foreign currency claims (FRN) were 0.0 US$ 60.0,000,000 which were issued by the board of directors, and 9.0 US$ 96.0,000,000,000,000 were issued by the board of directors, and there were no resolution of 19.0 US$60,000,000,000,000 were issued by the board of directors.

Ultimately, since Indonesia was in de facto maternity and was under the IMF management system, it entered into restructuring and it was in the condition that the total amount of the above claims could not be recovered due to insolvency of claims. Phili online, Inc., Ltd., and 250,000 out of the principal amount was repaid on June 7, 2000, but the remaining principal was repaid at USD 1,550,000 on June 7, 2009, USD 1,60,000 on June 7, 2010, USD 1,60,000,000 on June 7, 201, 200, and KRW 1,60,000 on June 1, 200, 200, 000 on June 1, 200, 2005, 006,005,005,000,001.

Therefore, Defendants 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 14 are directors and are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the above damages pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendants 10 and 11 are auditors and have neglected their duties by neglecting their supervision, such as correcting the above error. Thus, they are jointly and severally liable with other Defendants under Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act.

㈏ 판단

First of all, the Defendants did not dispute the fact that the credit rating of an international credit rating agency was not established in B. V. and Dharmala Co. B.V., and in Inc., but at the same time, the Defendants failed to perform their duties on the ground that foreign currency securities determined by the representative director may be subject to investment pursuant to Article 22 subparagraph 7 of the Guidelines for Handling Foreign Exchange Funds. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the Defendants neglected to perform their duties solely on the ground that there was no credit rating set by the international credit rating agency.

The following facts were 0.1 to 10 U.S. 2, 2, 3, or 11 of the 20-year EM 2000, 100 U.S. company's 20-year EM 1000,0000 U.S. company's 20-year EM 97,0000 U.S. company's 20-year EM 97,000 U.S. company's 20-year EM 9,000,0000,00000 7.10-year EM 96,0000,0000,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,000,000-7,000-7,000).

(22) As to Defendant 1, 5, 7, 12, and 14 related to derivative financial transactions

㈎ 원고의 주장

According to Article 7-60 of the Foreign Exchange Management Regulations, the purpose of which is to provide for matters delegated by the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and matters necessary for the enforcement thereof, if it is to conduct derivative financial transactions linked to credit risk of a party or a third party, the said Defendants are required to report to the Governor of the Bank of Korea. However, on June 24, 199, the said Defendants are obligated to collect the amount of investment in accordance with the rate of increase in the share price issued by the Equi-Lin No. e. e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e. e., e., e. e., e., 000 won and e., e., 2000 won and e., e., e., 2000 U.N.).

In addition, on June 24, 199, Kapal Mals-Sringa company in Malaysia participated in the above bonds purchase price as the above bonds, which is ultimately only a means for offering new shares in the way that the Yong-Nam would ultimately be fair to acquire new shares.

Therefore, Defendant 1, 5, 7, and 14 are directors, and are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the above damages pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 12, as an auditor, neglected to perform his/her duties by neglecting supervision, such as correcting the above error. Thus, Defendant 1, 5, 7, and 14 is jointly and severally liable with other Defendants under Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act.

㈏ 판단

First of all, on June 25, 1999, Kapal Mals-Sringa Company invested USD 20,000 when it was issued for capital increase with the payment of the debt in Yong-Nam as of June 25, 199, and on that day, Yong-Nam has deposited USD 20,000,000 in Yong-Namk, but there is no dispute between the parties. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to presume that Yong-Nam has made Kital Mals-Sringa Company participate in the payment of the debt purchase price in Yong-Namk with the payment of the debt purchase price in Yong-Namk, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is not acceptable (it is not possible to prove that there is no relation between Kital Mal-Singa and the Credit Guarantee Bank).

Next, Article 3(1)17 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 6277 of Oct. 23, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "financial transactions" means transactions conducted in the financial futures market or other similar transactions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "other similar transactions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means transactions conducted outside the financial futures market, such as means of payment, securities, bonds or other similar transactions (hereafter referred to as "products, etc." in this Article) at a predetermined price at a certain time in the future, such transactions shall be conducted by one of the parties to which money can be delivered or received from the other party at the price of the commodities, etc. or at the time of resale or repurchase; 2. The parties concerned shall be given or receive the difference between one of the parties to such transactions at the price of the commodities, etc. or at the rate of interest calculated by the index (hereinafter referred to as "indication, etc.") and the price calculated by an agreement between the parties in advance.

In addition, Article 7-60 of the former Foreign Exchange Management Regulations (amended by the Public Notice of Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1999-29 of Oct. 29, 199, hereinafter the same) (Article 7-40 of the current Regulation) provides that the transaction under Article 8 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act shall be reported to the Governor of the Bank of Korea in the transaction conducted by a foreign exchange agency as a foreign exchange business.

However, if Gap evidence 23-1 to 3, Gap evidence 87, Gap evidence 88-1, and Eul evidence 88-2 collected the purport of the whole pleadings, the credit purchase is a derivative financial transaction falling under Article 8-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and therefore, it is recognized that the credit purchase is reported to the Governor of the Bank of Korea under the foreign exchange management regulations, but it is not reported to the Governor of the Bank of Korea, because the repayment amount is related to the closing price of Yong-Nam, which is 2 days before the maturity of the common principle of the repayment of Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam's share price increase rate is high. However, if the price drops, it will not be deemed that the agreed credit purchase amount cannot be recovered at all.

However, it cannot be readily concluded that the above defendants' judgment, which is an executive officer who has issued the foreign exchange management regulations at the time of the above transaction, violated the duty of due care or good faith as a good manager, merely because he/she failed to fulfill his/her duty to report under the foreign exchange management regulations at the time of the above transaction, and thereby making it impossible to recover the investment amount. In making business judgment related to the decision of purchase of bonds, the above defendants shall be determined within the scope of reasonable choice required as a manager in carrying out business affairs, such as making a decision of purchase taking into account the return rate, size, risk of damage, etc. of investment, and if performing business affairs accordingly, even if the above defendants suffered damage from the act after the fact, they shall not be held liable for the loss

However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, it was necessary at the time to strengthen scenarios (a method of distributing investment to various items as part of reducing risks in stock investment) and there was a need to attract foreign capital in order to increase BS ratio as of June 199 (Equity Capital / Risk Assets ? 100). The redemption amount of the above bonds at maturity was related to such management situation. Furthermore, the interest rate of the above bonds was 8.2% per annum at the time, which was linked with the interest rate of government bonds, but was 8.2% per annum at the time, and it is difficult to accept the above bonds in the form of the issuer’s financial team’s product. Considering such facts and obligations under the Foreign Exchange Control Act or its Enforcement Decree, it cannot be seen that the Defendants did not have neglected to accept the above regulations such as the Plaintiff’s duty to report and to report foreign exchange management regulations, and that the Defendants did not have any option to receive the above funds at the time of the purchase of new bonds.

(23) As to Defendant 1, 2, and 13’s liability with respect to embezzlement of customer deposits by Defendant Dop○○○ (as to Defendant Dop○○, the aforementioned liability was acknowledged).

㈎ 원고의 주장

Defendant 1 and 2 are the representative director of Yong-Nam-Namon money, who is in a position of an agent based on the delegation contract with Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam, and the director in charge of financial transactions with respect to several fixed deposits opened and managed by Non-party 3 in Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-nam, and have withdrawn KRW 2,479,00,000 from Non-party 3’s account over 35 times from July 1994 to May 21, 197 and embezzled it. As seen above, Defendant 1 and 2 are in a position of an agent based on the delegation contract with Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam, and Defendant 13 is in a position of a good manager in accordance with the terms and conditions of delegation. Notwithstanding the general supervisory duty of Defendant Da-○, despite having performed the above duty of care, each of the above Defendants did not perform the above duty of care, thereby causing damage to Yong-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam-Nam.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, Defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1 and jointly liable for damages equivalent to KRW 2,479,00,000. Defendant 13, as the head of the business division, is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1 and the other Defendants for nonperformance due to the breach of the general supervisory duty as a good manager due to the performance of the duty.

㈏ 판단

Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, Defendant 1’s embezzlement was between July 1994 and May 21, 1997. As seen earlier, Defendant 1 was appointed as the representative director of Yong-Namon on May 14, 1998, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on Defendant 1 is without merit in this respect.

Next, the director's duty under Article 399 of the Commercial Act includes the general duty of supervision over employees as alleged by the plaintiff. Since the defendant 13 is in charge of the business affairs of the business division, it may include the duty of supervision over the employees of the business division, under the premise that the above Defendants at the time when they knew or could have known of the above embezzlement act of the defendant 20, but did not know it by negligence. The plaintiff's former proof that the above Defendants knew or could have known of the embezzlement act of the defendant 24-2, 3, 4, and 27-1, 27-1, and 2, and that the defendant 13 did not merely make it difficult for the defendant 2 to take charge of supervision over the employees of the business division. Thus, the defendant 3-2, from around 1983 to 13-2, the defendant 3-2, who did not have been responsible for the above withdrawal of the defendant 1-2, who did not have been responsible for the above withdrawal of the defendant 3-2's entrance.

(24) As to the liability of the Defendant 2 and 3 related to the act of repurchase after the occurrence of the default on the issuer of the unsecured sales bill

㈎ 원고의 주장

The Yong-Nam-Nam selected a qualified company to set the lending limit, set the lending limit, and thereafter loans at the discount of the bill for the issuance of Bosung, from October 13, 1997 to January 6, 1998, sold an amount of KRW 8,112,00,000 in total of the discounted bills as unsecured to the customer who received the discounted bill. The payment was refused due to the default of Bosung on January 4, 1998 and then redeemed all the outstanding bills during the period from January 21, 1998 to April 9, 198.

After all, Yong-Nam has made loans of KRW 8,112,00,000 at the discount of bill with the amount of KRW 8,12,000 to Bosung, and it has purchased outstanding bills from customers, but it is substantially impossible to exercise its loan claims against Bosung, resulting in losses equivalent to the above amount.

As a result, the above Defendants, a representative director or director, were due to the Defendants’ negligence in performing their duties as a good manager. Thus, the above Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for damages equivalent to KRW 8,112,00,000 in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

㈏ 판단

First, as seen earlier, Defendant 3 worked until January 7, 1998. Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the redemption of a bill was between January 21, 1998 and April 9, 1998, which was after Defendant 3’s withdrawal. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant 3, which is premised on Defendant 3’s involvement in the redemption of the bill, is without merit.

Next, the Yong-Nam-Nam selected as an eligible company and set the lending limit, accordingly, extended loans by discounting bills for the issuance of Bosung, from October 13, 1997 to January 6, 198, and sold 8,112,00,000 won in total of the discounted bills to customers as non-party 24 and other 200 non-party 1,00 won, and the fact that the payment of Yong-Nam-Nam was refused due to the default of Bosung on January 4, 1998 is no dispute between the parties.

However, in light of the above facts, if Gap's certificate 25, Eul's certificate 9-1 or 6, Eul's certificate 10-1 or 2, the whole purport of the oral argument (such as the judgment attached to the record) is collected, the request for repurchase of corporate bills has increased rapidly due to the financial crisis in Korea around November 1997, and even if the purchaser of corporate bills did not have any obligation to repurchase them, it is inevitable to respond to the request for repurchase for the sake of maintaining credit as a financial institution or protecting customers. The Ministry of Finance and Economy has increased such liquidity and financial market unstable, so it is difficult to say that the government has no obligation to repurchase corporate bills as a result of the above-mentioned financial institution's default on its own because it is difficult to repurchase corporate bills because it is hard to say that there was an unreasonable measure to repurchase corporate bills. Accordingly, it is hard to say that the government has no obligation to repurchase corporate bills because of its own financial institution's default on its own, such as repurchase of new notes.

(25) As to the liability of Defendant 1, 5, and 12 related to credit extended to the same person

㈎ 원고의 주장

According to the provisions of Article 15 of the former Merchant Banks Act (amended by Act No. 6205 of Jan. 28, 2000) and Article 23(1) of the Operational Guidelines for Gold Metals Act, a merchant gold company may not borrow a loan in excess of the credit limit to the same person. Defendant 1 is the representative director of Yong-Nam, Defendant 5 is the director, and Defendant 5 is the director, and Defendant 48,020,000,000 won of credit limit to the same person for Daewoo Capitals in credit transactions, such as bill discount and bill discount.

However, on August 26, 199, treatment group of 169.20 won and above 169,475,00,000 won (gold 217,495,000,000 - 48,020,000) as of August 26, 200, 200 non-collection of KRW 28,00,000 as of August 26, 200 [the Plaintiff, etc., 00,000,000 won and above 0.0,000 won and above 9.0,00 won and above 0.0,00 won and 9.0,00 won and 0.0 won and 150,00,000 won and 9.0,00 won and 9.0,00 won and 9.0,00 won and 20,00 won and 9.0,00 won and 9.7.20,09.

Therefore, Defendant 1 and 5, as a director, are jointly and severally liable for damages of KRW 28,00,000 pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. Defendant 12, as an auditor, neglected to perform his/her duties by neglecting supervision, such as correcting the above error. As such, Defendant 1 and 5 are jointly and severally liable with other Defendants under Article 414(1) and (3) of the Commercial Act.

㈏ 판단

The Defendants do not dispute the following facts: (a) the credit limit of Yong-Nam Nam Capital on July 26, 1999 (25/100 of equity capital) was about KRW 48,020,000,000 and the amount calculated by deducting KRW 48,020,000 from KRW 217,495,000,000,000 from KRW 217,49,475,000,000,000.

However, among the above amounts of KRW 169,475,00,000 in excess of the loan limit claimed by the Plaintiff, the above Defendants claimed that the above amounts of KRW 28,00,000,000 in total [call loan funds between financial institutions: extremely short-term loans between financial institutions; call lall lall lall lone lone lone lone lone lone lone at the lender's side and the borrower's side. call lall lone lone lone lone which can be recovered extremely short-term from the lender's side. call lall mainly used for short-term financing, such as bill of exchange at financial institutions, settlement of the end of the loan, etc., and returned to the next day according to the repayment period, without being returned to the next day, after excluding the date of loan, 000,0000 in excess of the loan limit prior to 0 months prior to the loan, and 0.0 months prior to the above notice.

Therefore, the guidelines for the operation of gold business (making by the Minister of Finance and Economy) which prescribed the specific scope of the credit granting limit was abolished on April 1, 1998. Since the regulations for the supervision of gold companies were enacted after the abolition of the above guidelines and were enforced on April 1, 1998, the scope of the credit granting limit under the above regulations for the supervision of gold companies should be applied in this case.

However, the Financial Supervisory Commission Regulations, which had been enforced on July 26, 1998, did not have any provision regarding the specific scope of the above credit granting limit, and there was no provision regarding the specific scope only after August 6, 1999.

Meanwhile, according to Article 23 (4) of the abolished Guidelines for Operation of Gold Metal Business, a gold company shall set the discount limit on bills within the same person under paragraph (1) when selecting a qualified company. Article 23 (6) of the same Act provides that the limit on the discount of bills under paragraph (4) of the same Article refers to the total sum of "amount of discount on bills" of a qualified company, "sale of bills with warranty liability", "bill discounted by endorsement or guarantee of other qualified companies", and the lending limit, which is the discount of bills, did not include the sales of unsecured bills or the above call theory (for example, according to the above provision, if a credit limit on a certain company is KRW 1 billion, if a gold company loans the above company with a bill discount of KRW 3 billion and sales of bills without a bill in an amount equivalent to KRW 2 billion among them, it cannot be deemed that the closed credit limit company exceeded one billion).

Article 4-3 of the Franchis Control Regulations newly established on August 6, 199 provides that "the scope of credit extension under Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Act and Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Franchis Control Regulations shall be the same as attached Table 2," and the attached Table 2, attached Table 2, is provided as shown in the attached Table 2. In the case of call theory, it was included in the limit of credit extension only when it comes to.

Therefore, in this case where no ground exists to deem that the newly established provision should be applied retroactively, the above newly established provision does not include 28,00,000,000 won in the call loan from the Yong-Nam Capital on July 26, 199 as the scope of credit extended to the same person. Thus, the above defendants' assertion pointing this out is reasonable, and eventually, this part of the defendants' assertion against the above defendants of the plaintiff on the premise that the call loan is included in the scope of credit extended to the same person is not acceptable ( even if the call loan is included in the scope of credit extended to the same person, the above call loan was not included in the scope of credit extended to the same person, and it was not included in the scope of credit extended to the abolished gold business operation guidelines, and therefore, the above defendants, who operated the Yong-Nam Capital business, did not have any provision on the supervision regulations on the extension of credit at the time of July 26, 199, cannot be concluded to include the above short-term loan limit to the same person.

(26) As to Defendant 1, 5, and 7’s liability relating to the redemption interest of the outstanding bill and the payment of excess interest of the CMA deposit, etc.

㈎ 원고의 주장

① According to the short-term guidelines with which the interest rate of KRW 10 is applied on December 31, 1998, 200 for each of 10,000 and KRW 30.4% of the agreed interest rate of KRW 10 for each of 30,000 and KRW 10.3% of the agreed interest rate of KRW 10 for each of 10,000,000 and KRW 10,000 for each of 10,000,000 and KRW 10,000 for each of 10,000,000 and KRW 10,000 for each of 30,000,000 and KRW 10,000 for each of 30,00,000,000,000 and KRW 10,000 for each of 10,000,00,00.

㈏ 판단

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence No. 89, Gap evidence No. 90, 91's evidence No. 1, 2, 3, and Gap evidence No. 92-1 through 5's overall purport of arguments, the defendant 1 was in charge of his duties as the representative director of Yong-Nam Nam amount at the time, and the defendant 5 and 7 was in charge of his duties, and the defendant 1 had been in charge of his duties until November 1, 199 through 3, 198's redemption of 1198's issued bills from customers, and the defendants did not apply the redemption rate of 1,159,00,00,000 won, which is the difference between the above 1,000 won and the above interest rate of 30's issued bills, and it was found that the defendants were not aware that the above amount exceeded 30's paid 446's paid amount exceeding 30,000,000 won for the above reasons for termination of the contract.

However, a merchant bank's operating manual or its parts, short-term financing guidelines, etc. cannot be said to be a law. If Eul's entire arguments were made together with the intent of 1,2, and 3 of the evidence 2-1, 2, and 3, the rules governing the method of delegation on the method of performing its functions do not require the approval of the representative director, etc. (Article 4), and the right of resolution shall be exercised properly and promptly, and shall be held with the approval of the superior (Article 5). However, if it is deemed that the contents of the above rules are different, it shall be deemed that the above rules have not been enforced by the board of directors (Article 7) or that the above rules have not been enforced by the board of directors. The rules governing the method of delegation on the method of performing its functions shall be deemed not to have been enforced by the 90th executive officer's own interest rate or by the 9th executive officer's own interest rate on new and outstanding bonds (Article 8). It shall be deemed that the above rules have not been enforced separately from the 98th executive officer's interest rate.

In addition, even if the above Defendants knew of the above business performance or were negligent in not knowing it, the above acts of the vice-president and the vice-president were to prevent withdrawals of deposits by guaranteeing the application of the agreed rate in the situation of the closed-off of gold companies after the foreign exchange financial crisis and liquidity crisis after the treatment crisis of 1999, or to induce the re-deposit after withdrawals. In fact, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, in the case of the 1198 cases, 752 cases among 1198 cases (related to the redemption interest of the issued bill), 163 cases among 82 cases (related to the payment in excess of the interest of the CMA deposit), and 163 cases (related to the payment in excess of the interest of the CMA deposit), it is difficult to conclude that the above acts of the vice-president and the vice-president neglected their duties.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion against the said Defendants is without merit without any need to further examine the period of actual service of the said Defendants and the amount of damages incurred during the said period.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Dop○ is justified within the scope of the above recognition. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the same defendant and each claim against the remaining defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' engine heat (Presiding Judge) Pool Poolsium