1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant I, as the representative director of S, is responsible for the seal management and personnel management on behalf of the company.

Therefore, when the above defendant performs the seal management work, he must ensure that the seal of the company is not used without permission other than the actual usage, and even though he has the duty of care to thoroughly monitor and supervise the company's illegal act, he neglected the relevant work by gross negligence in violation of the duty of care and neglected the relevant work for 6 years, thereby neglecting to do so, such as sealing S's seal impression in the document related to the fraud loan for n for 6 years.

Therefore, Defendant I is liable for damages to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act.

In addition, the auditor has a duty to audit the performance of duties of a director with the care of a good manager, and the defendant M, as a auditor of S, violated the duty of care and good faith, failed to perform seal management and personnel management to the extent that the representative director could not detect N's illegal act for a long time, but did not perform any internal control.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 414(2) and (3) of the Commercial Act, Defendant M is jointly and severally liable with Defendant I to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

The defendants' assertion S delegated to the head of the team or the head of the competent department the authority to make a full decision on the seal management and the service management for employees under internal regulations.

Therefore, Defendant I is not responsible for the seal management as a representative director of S, and the service management for individual employees is not directly controlled, and Defendant M is not appointed under the premise that S’s daily work is to be performed as a non-standing auditor, and therefore, the above Defendant is day-to-day.