1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the plaintiff's grounds for appeal and the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and therefore, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the ground for appeal by the plaintiff

A. Although the court of first instance rejected the Defendant’s defense that the Defendant used the embezzled subsidy as operating funds of C and D with the recognition of the Defendant’s liability for damages, the part on the limitation of liability is erroneous in recognizing the Defendant’s liability for damages by 30% or limitation on the Defendant’s liability for damages on the ground that it is unclear whether the Defendant acquired personal benefits with the embezzled subsidy.

B. When a director or auditor is liable to compensate the company for damages by committing an act in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, the scope of the compensation for damages may be limited in light of the principle of fair compensation for damages by taking into account all the circumstances such as the contents and nature of the relevant business, the background leading up to the relevant director or auditor’s breach of duties and the manner leading up to such violation, objective circumstances or degree involved in the occurrence and expansion of company damages, contributions to the relevant director or auditor, pertinent director or auditor’s degree of contribution to the company, the pertinent director or auditor’s profit from the violation, existence of company’s organizational structure, existence of risk management system, and establishment of the risk management system. Furthermore, determination of facts or ratio for the reason for mitigation of liability belongs to the exclusive

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60467, 60474 Decided December 10, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da51471 Decided December 11, 2008, etc.