The Defendant’s repayment of the remainder claim of this case does not constitute bad faith or gross negligence.

Unless there is evidence that the Defendant actively recruited with C00 or 000, or used illegal means for the purpose of obstructing the exercise of the Plaintiff’s claim, the act of paying the remainder claim of this case constitutes either a breach of duty due to the Defendant’s simple default, bad faith or gross negligence, or a tort.

1. Basic facts

A. Sales contract between 00 Naz. and c.00 on March 25, 2008

1) C&00 Co., Ltd. on March 25, 2008

From 100 to 3.5 billion won, Seoul, 000 Dong 000 to 152-23 large 214 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”), which owned a large amount of 000 persons, were to purchase the instant real property. Of the purchase price, 2.43 billion won out of the purchase price was to substitute the payment for acquiring the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on the instant real property in lieu of the acquisition of the secured obligation of the instant real property, and if C00 did not take over the obligation of collateral security, 000 persons agreed to exercise the right to complete the resale promise on the instant real property.

2) On March 27, 2008, 000 Nana had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on March 27, 2008, and on the same day, the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was completed on the grounds of the promise to re-trade.

B. Conclusion of the instant sales contract

1) As C.00 did not accept the above collateral security obligation, C.C. (1) exercised the right to complete the re-sale reservation on the real estate in the instant case, and at the same time made a principal registration on the basis of provisional registration. On September 18, 2009, C.C.00 and the purchase price was KRW 3.5 billion, the remainder of KRW 1 billion, excluding the amount of KRW 2.43 billion as the collateral security obligation, shall be paid to the remainder of KRW 1.5 billion, on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 535 million shall be paid on November 1, 2009 (hereinafter “instant purchase contract”).

After that, on September 21, 2009, the main text, etc. of the provisional registration on the instant real estate

The flag was completed.

2) Meanwhile, C000 remaining 535 million won (hereinafter “the remainder”)

to secure payment, the registration of creation of a collateral with respect to the instant real property by a director of C,00,000 as a collateral and with a maximum debt amount of KRW 535,00,000,000,000

upon the request of 000 Ghana to complete, and upon the consent of 000 Ghana, the title of the instant real property

on September 21, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 535 million, the debtor 000Na, and the mortgagee of the right to collateral security 000.

The establishment registration of neighboring mortgage was completed.

C. Attachment of the remainder claim of this case

1) Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act shall apply to the Plaintiff-affiliated 00B on September 29, 2009

Pursuant to the Plaintiff’s taxation claim amounting to KRW 787,358,230 on C,00, the remainder claim amounting to KRW 787,358,230 on C,00 was seized (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

C) The above notification was served on September 30, 2009, and reached 000 Ghana.

2) On November 7, 2012, the director of the tax office, under the Plaintiff’s control, shall take the instant attachment disposition against the Plaintiff-based 00 Ghana.

Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiff was urged to pay KRW 535 million to the Plaintiff the remainder claim of this case.

(d) Conclusion of a trade contract between 00 Naz. and 000; and

On the other hand, on September 24, 2009, 000 Ghana sold the instant real estate to new 000 billion won. The down payment of KRW 100 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 2.4 billion on October 22, 2009, and the remainder on October 22, 2009.

1.1 billion won is to be paid in November 1, 2009, and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on the instant real estate was decided to be cancelled in order until the remainder payment date.

(e) The payment of any balance of 00 Ghana; and

On November 13, 2009, 000 Ghana paid KRW 535 million to the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, claiming that he received the instant remainder claim from C000 on November 13, 2009, and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of 000 was cancelled.

(f) Closure of 000 Ghana; and

From January 10, 2006 to November 5, 2012, the Defendant was a person who served as a representative director of 000 Ghana. 00 Ghana closed on November 5, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 8, 9 (including each number), Eul

Each entry of evidence, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the instant attachment disposition, 000 Ghana paid any balance as against the instant attachment disposition, even if C00 did not pay any balance under the instant sales contract, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was unable to recover the claim against C00 as the Plaintiff discontinued its business. The Defendant, who was a representative director of 000 Ghana, was aware of the instant attachment disposition and was negligent in performing his duties as the representative director on purpose or by gross negligence, paid the instant balance to 000, and the Plaintiff, who was a third party, suffered loss from the failure to recover the claim. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages under Article 401 or 389(3) of the Commercial Act, inasmuch as the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages under Article 210 of the Commercial Act.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to whether liability is established under Article 401(1) of the Commercial Act

A) Article 401(1) of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 10600, Apr. 14, 201)

If a director has neglected to perform his duties wilfully or by gross negligence, such director shall be third person.

The corporation is jointly and severally liable for damages. The original director is the corporation.

by delegation to the corporation, only the fiduciary duty of due care of a good manager as the fiduciary for the corporation, shall be

In relation to the above, even if damages were incurred in violation of the above duty, the liability for damages is naturally liable.

However, if a director's bad faith or gross negligence causes a loss to a third party in violation of his/her duty to protect the third party, considering that the activities of a corporation which is in an important position in today's modern economic society depend on the performance of his/her duties, which is the institution, the director shall be liable for damages to the third party who is in a proximate causal relation with the act of breach of duty due to bad faith or gross negligence of the above director.

(See Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2409 delivered on November 12, 1985, etc.)

B) Whether the duty has been neglected due to bad faith or gross negligence

(4) According to the purport of this case’s testimony and pleading as to the above facts, Gap’s 5 through 8 (including number 1), Eul’s 7-2, and Eul’s testimony and pleading as witnesses, although 00 Ghana notified that it cannot pay any balance of 00 on the ground of the attachment disposition, it shall compensate for the losses of 2 times the remainder of this case’s 00. 2 00 Ghana sent notice that it would be difficult for the defendant to pay any balance of 00 U.S.C.’s 00 to resolve the issue of the attachment disposition of this case’s 00 and that it would be difficult for the defendant to pay any balance of 00 U.S.’s 00 U.S.C.’s 1’s remaining security interest to prevent any balance of 00 U.S.’s 100 U.S. 20 and U.S. 1’s remaining security interest to prevent any balance of 000 U.S.C.’s remaining security interest from being paid.

Therefore, under the premise that the defendant has breached his duties by bad faith or gross negligence.

The claim of this case is without merit without further consideration (the defendant's bad faith or significant action)

Even if there was a breach of duty due to negligence, if there is a seizure of monetary claims, that change.

The third obligor shall be prohibited from paying to the obligor by virtue of the effect of the prohibition, and the obligation shall be

Payment to a person shall be null and void to the extent of undermining the execution creditor. As such, the plaintiff shall be 000

b) asserts that the payment of any balance has no effect in relation to the Plaintiff and to 000 Ghana

In this case, it was possible to collect according to the attachment disposition of this case, and 000 Nanas 2009.

11. From November 13, 201 to 00, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff suffered direct damage due to the representative director’s bad faith or gross negligence by reason of the fact that it was impossible to collect the remainder at the time of closure of the business by 2 years after payment to 00,000, and that it was difficult to deem that the Plaintiff suffered direct damage due to the representative director’s breach of duties due to bad faith or gross negligence, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff suffered damage under Article 40

2) Determination as to the establishment of liability under Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act

Pursuant to Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act, the representative director of a corporation shall be the representative director of the corporation.

A stock company which causes damage to another person in the course of performing its business shall be jointly and severally liable to the representative director.

(2) The representative director shall be liable for damages to a third party jointly with the company.

The inclusion may be limited to cases where the representative director committed an illegal act in the course of his/her execution of business (law by proxy).

See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da77969 Decided February 14, 2013

However, in light of the facts as seen earlier, 000 Ghana’s attachment disposition of this case

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it constitutes a tort in the course of performing duties to pay the balance of the instant case.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

C.

Article 401 (1) of the Commercial Act