beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The expenses after the appeal has been filed.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the Daegu Bank account of No. 12 of the judgment of the first instance among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be placed in the “Fast Bank account”; (b) the “Fast Bank account” of No. 2, No. 12 of the judgment of the first instance shall be placed in the “Fast Bank account”; and (c) June 20, 195, the “No. 4, Jun. 30, 1995,” and the “No. 30, Jun. 30, 1995,” and (d) the “No. 7, Dec. 1 and
2. The portion to be judged additionally by the trial.
C. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the conjunctive claim added in the trial for the first instance, and even if E is the party to the transfer contract of this case, the Defendant is liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff by the president of the Defendant at the time pursuant to Article 35(1) of the Civil Act. However, E received 190 million won as part of the down payment and the balance under the transfer contract of this case from the Plaintiff, and in violation of its duty, thereby having committed an unlawful act for selling the assets of the Defendant hospital, etc. to G et al., and thus, the transfer contract of this case was rescinded at the point of impossibility of performance. Thus, the Defendant added it to the conjunctive claim by asserting that it is liable for damages to the Plaintiff (= KRW 190 million paid by the Plaintiff) and damages for delay.
However, as seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff’s contracting party becomes final and conclusive as E in the instant transfer contract, it is difficult to see that E engaged in any illegal act with respect to the Defendant’s representative’s duties, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that E engaged in double selling “the act of breach of trust, etc.,” such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s above assertion premised on this premise is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim and each conjunctive claim are without merit.