Whether the actual representative who embezzled funds of delinquent corporations shall compensate the State for the amount equivalent to the amount of embezzlement.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants, as the director and the actual representative of the defaulted corporation, should compensate the State for the amount equivalent to the amount of embezzlement because they were unable to perform their tax liability by embezzlement of corporate funds. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the embezzlement, and there is no reason to further

Liability of a person who instructs the execution of business under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 151,070,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint and the day of full payment.

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case. The defendant Jeong-○ is the director of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "○○ Construction"), and the defendant private ○○ is the actual representative of ○○ Construction, and is the business performance order under Article 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act. The defendant private ○○○ has reduced the property of ○○ Construction by embezzlementing KRW 152,070,000 from ○○○○ Construction's funds collected by ○○○○○ and transferred them to Defendant Jung-○○○, thereby reducing the property of ○○ Construction. Accordingly, the defendants are liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the amount of the above embezzlement in accordance with Articles 401-2(1) and 401 of the Commercial Act or Article 760 of the Civil Act.

The facts that KRW 152,00,00 for ○ Construction was remitted to Defendant Jeong-○ were not disputed between the parties. Meanwhile, in light of the contents of evidence No. 11-1 through 4, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, and evidence No. 2-1, 2-2, and evidence No. 1, 3-10, evidence No. 11-1 through 6, evidence No. 11-2, 12-1 through 40, evidence No. 14-1, 2, 3, and 16-1, 16-1, 17-1, 2, 18-1 through 5, 19-1, 2-2, 10-2, 21-4, 3-2, 14-2, and 3-1, 3-2, and 4-2 of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants did not have any other evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.