beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 111,95,35 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 2, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant Company is a company that operates the business of construction of civil engineering and electrical machinery and equipment, and the Plaintiff A holds shares equivalent to at least 1/10,000 of the total number of shares issued by the Defendant Company as the chairperson of the trade union
B. As the children of Defendant Company Start-up (D), C’s tort (1) held office as the representative director and director of Defendant Company from around 1993 to February 11, 2010, and director of Defendant Company from August 2, 2012, respectively.
(2) From the end of April 2011, the Financial Supervisory Service and the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation conducted a joint inspection on the E Mutual Savings Bank on April 201, 201, they discovered eight points that were pointed out, as a result of the interim inspection on April 4, 2011, such as understating the bad classification of asset soundness, and overappropriating the equity capital ratio of 14.5 billion won for E Mutual Savings Bank. Accordingly, the Financial Supervisory Service notified that E Mutual Savings Bank’s major shareholders at the time of the major shareholder would have been comprised of F (29.2%) C (2.3%) Defendant Company (9.9%) Ga (2.9%) and H (1.9%) that E Mutual Savings Bank would have received management improvement order if it did not deposit the equity capital increase of 12 billion won by the end of May 201.
(3) Since the E Mutual Savings Bank began to be a small savings bank with capital of 12 billion won, from September 2010 to its enemy, its business profits as of the end of June 201, approximately KRW -18.9 billion for net income, approximately KRW -20.2 billion for net income, approximately KRW -5.07% for net income, and KRW 129.5% for capital erosion. At the time, the status of the K Savings Bank’s business industry and the business characteristics of the Small Savings Bank were not feasible for business normalization as a continuous company within a short period of time.
(4) At that time, the Defendant Company also reduces the volume of private stock issued by the company.