logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.01.10 2010나84682
손해배상
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of Defendant B and the status of Defendant C and D 1) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd. E”), Defendant B (“Co., Ltd. E”), on June 20, 2007, “F” on July 9, 2008, “G Co., Ltd.” and “B” on February 11, 2010, as of the present.

“Defendant Company,” regardless of whether it was before or after the change in the trade name.

A) A company established for the main business purpose of manufacturing and selling radio communication parts, electronic parts, etc. and listed on KOSDAQ on May 2002. At present, the main business purpose of Defendant C is manufacturing, importing, selling medical devices, etc.) Defendant C, who served as the representative director of the Defendant Company from August 5, 2005 to February 16, 2007, was practically involved in the management of the Defendant Company. Nonparty C, as a managing director of the Defendant Company and the managing director of the Defendant C, was a person who managed the corporate name, corporate reduction, and corporate passbook by taking overall control of the management support room as the managing director of the Defendant Company and the managing director of the Defendant C.

Defendant D received approximately one million won monthly from the Defendant Company from March 30, 2005 to May 20, 2007 upon P’s request and lent the name of director.

3) Around December 2005, the Defendant Company started the development and sale of Rader machinery, such as IR Rad Radr Radr emitting machine, etc. as a new project from around 2003 to around 2005, but was a subsidiary company (hereinafter “O”) around January 2006.

After transferring the business to the Corporation, the Corporation did not engage in the business of developing and selling laser machinery, and the O has yet to develop the laser luminous machine until June 2006, but did not complete the development to the extent that the laser machine can be sold promptly with the product. The Defendant Company and theO would purchase the laser machine from other companies than the LTS until July 2006.

another company, such as being proposed to purchase after the use inspection for a given period.

arrow