1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant D is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the above Defendant is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that was established on April 29, 1996 and operates a power plant manufacturing and sales business.

B. From July 24, 2007 to October 20, 2009, Defendant B had worked as the Plaintiff’s director. On September 18, 2007, Defendant D acquired the Plaintiff’s shares of 3.5 million shares (7.56%) and the management right from Defendant D, but transferred the Plaintiff’s shares of 1,746,627 shares (11.5%) and the management right of 1,746 shares (12.8%) from October 9, 2009 to E.

C. Defendant D was the representative director of the Plaintiff from June 18, 2007 to March 29, 2010.

On March 10, 2008, the Plaintiff, a subsidiary of F Co., Ltd. (mutual name was changed from O Co., Ltd. and G Co., Ltd. to the current trade name; hereinafter “F”) and lent KRW 6,50,000 on March 9, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”). 【The grounds for recognition - Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 22, and 24, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Defendant C, on June 19, 2007, took over the Plaintiff’s shares and the right of management on the ground of Defendant D on the ground of June 19, 2007. Defendant C, a subordinate employee of the Plaintiff at the time of lending the instant funds, was in the office of the Plaintiff’s representative director, and he jointly managed the Plaintiff as a joint manager under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act.

Defendant B and C, as the actual co-manager of the Plaintiff, and Defendant D, as the representative director of the Plaintiff, embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds by lending KRW 650,000 to F, which is only a Pucom, on March 10, 2008.

Even if embezzlement is not established, the Defendants, even if F already lost the ability to repay debts and lent the above funds to the company, did not take reasonable and reasonable measures to recover debts, such as being provided with sufficient collateral, with the knowledge that damage would occur to the Plaintiff if the funds were leased to the company.

Therefore, the defendants are liable for tort caused by intention or negligence against the damages suffered by the plaintiff.