2013 Doz. 11830 Damage, Claim

A Stock Company

1. A stock company for dyp asset management; and

2. B;

3. C.

4. D;

July 3, 2014

July 17, 2014

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 7 million won with 6% interest per annum from September 22, 2011 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2009, Defendant D entered into a contract with the Plaintiff bank for the acquisition of part of the Plaintiff’s own stocks, which was the representative director and the major shareholder of the Plaintiff bank. Accordingly, on June 24, 2009, the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service urged the Plaintiff bank to issue a strict warning and caution due to the invalidation of the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s own stocks and the violation of relevant regulations, and Defendant D decided to restore the same to its original state.

B. Meanwhile, on September 21, 201, the Plaintiff bank purchased 140,000 shares of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”) and Defendant C Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) for KRW 70,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant share purchase contract”). The Financial Supervisory Service inspected the Plaintiff bank from September 21, 201 to June 8, 201, and determined that KRW 700,000 out of the purchase price paid by Defendant D when it purchased its shares from the Plaintiff bank from September 30, 2011, Plaintiff C purchased its shares with Defendant C’s funds.

D. In purchasing the Plaintiff’s own shares, Defendant D had the Plaintiff bank purchase the Defendant’s shares under the name of Defendant C, and had the Plaintiff bank pay the purchase price for the shares to Nonparty E via Defendant C, and had Defendant D lent the purchase price for the said shares from Nonparty E to use it as a repayment fund for personal debt to be borne by the Plaintiff’s own shares in the process of purchasing the Plaintiff’s shares. On September 21, 2011, Defendant A had Defendant C purchase KRW 140,000 shares for KRW 70 million on September 21, 201, Defendant C purchased the shares for KRW 140,000 shares in Defendant C’s account, and received KRW 70 million as the representative director of the Plaintiff bank, and received a summary order of KRW 20,000 from the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Da2248 on the fact that the other party was granted a credit extension.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6 through 8, and 10 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers); the fact inquiry results with respect to the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service of this Court; the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff bank's assertion

The Plaintiff: “At all times, the Defendants conspired with the Plaintiff bank to purchase the shares of Defendant B and C, which were owned by Defendant B and C, and Defendant D’s purchase price of KRW 700 million.

As the Plaintiff bank used to purchase the Plaintiff bank’s own shares without exchange value, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff bank, Defendant D is liable for joint tort. In addition, Defendant D, as representative director of the Plaintiff bank at the time of the conclusion of the instant share purchase agreement, failed to perform the duties delegated by the Plaintiff bank, thereby failing to perform his duties faithfully, thereby incurring damage on the Plaintiff bank in collusion with the other Defendants, and thus, is liable for compensation.

B. Whether the Plaintiff bank suffered losses

Defendant D’s violation of the prohibition of credit extension to a large shareholder under the Mutual Savings Banks Act does not immediately lead to the Plaintiff’s bank’s liability for damages caused by the tort, and further, constitutes a tort that actually causes damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da62608, May 13, 201).

In this case, whether the Plaintiff bank acquired the Defendant’s shares under the instant stock sales contract and incurred damage to the Plaintiff bank is a key issue, which is the primary and conjunctive claim. Therefore, it first examines this issue.

The Plaintiff bank asserts that it sustained losses of KRW 700 million by acquiring the shares of Defendant Lee Jong-soo, who has no exchange value, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this (or, according to each of the statements Nos. 6, 12, and No. 1 through No. 4, Defendant Lee Byung-soo was established pursuant to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act of 2010 and authorized by the Financial Services Commission, and its capital is 10.10 billion won, and all other financial companies, such as Korea Bank, Gwangju Bank, Incorporated Bank, Solomon Mutual Savings Bank, and Geum-gu Integrated Finance Corporation, etc., are also listed in the shareholder registry of September 22, 201 as the shareholder registry of the Defendant Lee Jong-soo. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that there is no exchange value even if the shares of the non-listed company are shares). Accordingly, the Plaintiff bank’s assertion is without merit without any further need to examine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, fixed-ranking judge

Judge power failure

Encouragement of Judge Creation