2017Na11796 Unlawful gains

1. The same industry as the stock company;

2. Daeyang Industries Co., Ltd.:

3. The SP industry; and

4. Hyblo industry; and

5. Primary industry in the stock company.

Han Bank, Inc.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Gahap10945 Decided May 18, 2017

March 7, 2018

May 16, 2018

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Dongdong Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. 185,692,519 won; 40,416,648 won; 39,208,207 won to Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.; 8,127,254 won; 1,303,286 won to the plaintiff Han Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.; and 20% interest per annum from the day following the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for dismissal or addition as follows.

○ In the fourth instance judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court rendered a sentence between 11 and 15 (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10847). The part “(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da10842).” The appeal by the prosecutor (Seoul High Court Decision 2016No334) and the appeal by the prosecutor (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10847) were all dismissed, so the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive.”

○ Added "No. 33" in Section 17 of the first instance judgment

It is also insufficient to recognize that executives and employees of the above bank have received additional interest from the 8th judgment of the court of first instance. "In short, it is insufficient to recognize that they received additional interest from the above bank's arbitrary increase of additional interest." (Although the plaintiffs did not explicitly add a claim for damages due to illegal acts, they claim the illegal acts of the executives and employees of the former Korea Exchange Bank from the preparatory document dated March 6, 2018.)."

○ In the first instance judgment, “No. 30, 34” was added to Section 2 below the 8th page of the first instance judgment.

○ In the last 10th or 11th of the judgment of the first instance, the sentence was pronounced “(at present, the appeal court is in progress).” The appeal by the prosecutor (Seoul Central District Court 2016No5193) and the appeal by the prosecutor (Supreme Court 2017Do14582) were all dismissed, thereby the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judgment of the presiding judge

Judges Hwang Jin-hee

Judges Kim Gin-hee