beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”); Defendant B and C are the inside director of the Nonparty Co., Ltd. and Defendant D are the auditors of the Nonparty Co., Ltd.
The Plaintiff entered into a steel processing contract with the non-party company, 80,810km in total (239,00km in 2013 + 369,529km in 2014 + 192,281km in 2016) with respect to reinforced concrete construction among the "F," which was contracted by the non-party company, and settled the price by the end of August 2016.
However, around August 2016, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Non-Party Company was unable to pay attention to the Non-Party Company, and the Plaintiff came to know of the fact that a considerable amount of steel bars that the Plaintiff entered the Non-Party Company, and recovered the Plaintiff’s steel bars 298,841kg, which remains in the Non-Party Company’s factory on September 1, 2016 with the consent of the relevant party.
As a result, the Plaintiff recovered 586,109kg (287,268kg near the processed steel that was supplied to the non-party company + recovered 298,841kg near the recovered steel that was put into storage by the non-party company.
① The Defendants: (a) arbitrarily disposed of the iron bars 214,701km (=80,810km- - 586,109km) that the Plaintiff was unable to recover the said iron bars due to the Defendants’ breach of the duty of care not thoroughly managed and controlled so that each transaction party of the Nonparty Company could not recover the said scrap bars at will; (b) thereby, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 129,321,129, the amount of the unpaid scrap bars.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act or liability under Article 401 of the Commercial Act to pay KRW 129,321,129 to the Plaintiff the price for the delayed collection.
2. First of all, there is evidence that the Defendants embezzled the Plaintiff’s steel bars.