2015. 57560 Damages (ar)

The Bankruptcy Trustee A of the Bankrupt Corporation

Law Firm Grandmark, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

1. B

Attorney Han-chul et al.

2. C

3. D;

4. E.

Defendant 2-4 Law Firm LLC (LLC)

Attorney Kim Jong-seok

5. F;

January 13, 2017

February 7, 2017

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Each of the Defendants stated in the column of section 1 through 4, 7, and 12 in the table of "amount of personal use" shall be jointly and severally paid the amount recorded in the column of the cited amount in the same table and the amount of damages for delay from the date of entry to February 7, 2017 to the date of full payment, with 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

B. Defendant B shall pay 5% per annum from the date of entry in the column for the amount of award Nos. 14 and 15 in the [Attachment 4] list, and from the date of February 7, 2017 to the date of full payment, 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and

C. Defendant B and F jointly pay 5% per annum from the date indicated in the column for the amount of award No. 16 in the [Attachment 4] of the “amount of discount” table, and from February 7, 2017 to the date indicated in the column for the “basic date of calculation of delay damages” of the same sequence, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. Of litigation costs;

A. 1/10 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, and D shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants respectively.

B. 3/4 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant E shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the above Defendant, respectively.

C. 4/5 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant F shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the said Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the "Amount of Claim" shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 5% interest per annum from the date stated in the column of claim amount in the same sequence of the same table, and from the date mentioned in the "Initial Date of Calculation of Delay Damages" to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) On July 22, 2005, the bankrupt debtor corporation A (the trade name of July 2, 2005 was changed from 'G' to 'H', and on November 26, 2012, 'A' was changed to 'A', and 'A' is a corporation established under the Mutual Savings and Finance Company Act for the purpose of credit fraternity business, credit installment savings business, receipt of deposits and installment savings, loan business, etc.

2) On May 2, 2014, A was decided as an insolvent financial institution under the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry, and its business was suspended from May 2, 2014 to November 1, 2014. On October 21, 2014, A was declared bankrupt by Busan District Court 2014Hau102, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a bankruptcy trustee under the said bankruptcy procedure.

3) The remaining Defendants except Defendant F are those who worked as officers of A, and their status and tenure of office are as listed below. Defendant F is those who worked as a representative director and a director from August 26, 2004 to July 18, 2006 and from July 19, 2006 to August 28, 2009.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Investigation into the Plaintiff’s bad loans, etc.

1) From May 26, 2014 to September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff investigated whether there was any defective or unfair loan in violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act and the standard loan regulations for mutual savings banks with respect to A, whether the relevant persons are liable for the insolvency, and whether executives and employees embezzled A’s funds.

2) As a result of the above investigation, the loan details of the non-performing loan that the Plaintiff deemed to fall under the causes of insolvency, such as the fraudulent loan, damages, embezzlement of executives and employees, amount of damages, details of the Defendants’ wrongful act, amount of damages, etc. are as shown in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Claim Amount Table”) (hereinafter referred to as “each of the loans listed in the Nos. 1 through 13”), “each of the loans in this case,” “each of the individual loans in this case,” “each of the embezzlement acts listed in No. 14 and No. 16,” and “each of the embezzlement acts listed in the No. 14 through No. 16, each of the embezzlement acts in this case,” and “each of the embezzlement acts in this case,” according to the column of “No. 13.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 16 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2, 7, 8 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Defendant C, D, and E’s defense prior to the merits

A. Defendant C, D, and E’s assertion

Even if the Plaintiff owns several damage claims against Defendant C, D, and E in accordance with each of the instant loans, each of the damage claims constitutes a separate subject matter of lawsuit, so long as it is a separate claim that differs from the time of occurrence and the cause of occurrence, it should be specified for each of the damage claims arising from each of the instant loans, but the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit by stating only the total amount without specifying it. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination

In light of the records, the claim amount per damage claim under each of the loans of this case is clearly stated in the column of "damage amount" in the claim amount table attached to the plaintiff's claim and the claim amount attached to the application form for the change of the reasons for the claim, which was submitted on January 4, 2017, and the claim amount attached to the application form for the change of the reasons for the claim. Thus, the claim amount per damage claim under each of the loans of this case is specified in the records of this case. Accordingly, the aforementioned defendants' prior defense cannot be accepted.

3. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. Determination as to the claim related to the PF loan (No. 1 to 13 loans of this case)

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Defendant B, C, and D examined and approved the loan of each project (hereinafter referred to as "K"), Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "L"), M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "N"), N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "O"), P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "P"), Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "P"), R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "S"), and Defendant C, D, and E were jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the loan of each company (hereinafter referred to as "S"), U.S. Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "V"), and V, and each of the above Articles 14 and 14 of the Commercial Act were not negligent in examining and approving the loan of each project (hereinafter referred to as "PF loan"), and were not negligent in taking measures for preserving the credit, and each of the above Articles 94 and 14 of the Commercial Act was breached its duty of care to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.

2) Relevant legal principles

A) Since an executive officer or employee of a financial institution has the duty of due care as a good manager of the financial institution, it must perform his/her duty as an executive officer or employee at the time of faithfully performing the duty. However, even if a financial institution claims liability for damages due to nonperformance against its executive officer or employee on the ground of its failure to perform the duty related to the loan, it cannot be concluded that the judgment of the executive officer or employee who issued the decision of the loan is in breach of the duty of due care or the duty of due care as a good manager. If a financial institution’s business judgment related to the loan conducted a loan examination in good faith for the maximum interest of the company in accordance with the procedure appropriate in its circumstances as an ordinarily reasonable financial institution, its business judgment is permissible within the permissible scope of discretion, and it shall be deemed that the financial institution has fulfilled the duty of due care or the duty of due care as a good manager for the company, and even if the loan was made difficult to collect or collect as a result of the loan, it shall be held that it has a duty of due care and duty of due care as a good manager.

B) The so-called project financing (PF) loan is a financial transaction that evaluates the feasibility of a specific project related to real estate development and makes the future cash flow to be generated in the relevant project as the main source of repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. As such, the determination on the loan repayment capacity is mainly dependent on the evaluation of the project feasibility. In such a case, a director of a financial institution, after sufficiently collecting, investigating, and examining necessary information while examining the project feasibility as a requirement for the loan, made a reasonable decision on the ground that it accords with the maximum interest of the financial institution, and based on such procedures, made a reasonable decision on the management under the good faith and trust and trust, and it is within the scope of ordinarily selected as a director because the contents are not considerably unreasonable, the director cannot be held liable for damages to the company even if the result was incurred later. However, if a director of a financial institution causes losses to the company by unilaterally performing his/her duties under the general and abstract expectation that it will not merely carry out his/her duties through this process, it cannot be deemed that it conforms with the principle of trust and trust within 1010.

C) The hub loan, which is a land purchase fund loan on the premise of real estate development, is a derivative PF loan handled by a mutual savings bank, which is a second financial right that provides loans to small and medium enterprises lacking credit loans compared to the first financial right, and is a financial transaction that evaluates the feasibility of a specific project related to real estate development and makes future cash flow generated from such project as the main source of repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. Thus, in determining the ability to repay such PF loan, the assessment of feasibility of the relevant real estate development project accounts for a considerable portion of the assessment of feasibility of the relevant real estate development project and only physical, human, and security cannot be deemed a method of recovery of claims.

In particular, if the real estate competition is a yellow situation, the PF loan was the main source of revenue of the mutual savings bank, and there are many cases where the executor or its manager of a specific project related to the development of real estate did not have sufficient assets to secure large amount of PF loan. Therefore, it is difficult to deem the PF loan itself prohibited or illegal at all times due to the mere fact that the physical and human collateral was not provided.

D) Article 5 and Article 6 of the Regulations on the Handling of PF Loans by a mutual savings bank, reflecting the characteristics of such PF loans, can substitute for a review of the feasibility of the relevant project. In handling the PF loans, a review of the feasibility of the project shall be prior to the review of the project, and if necessary, may request an external specialized institution to review the feasibility of the project. However, in the case of participation in the lender group arranged by another financial institution, it may invoke a review of the feasibility of the project conducted by the financial institution in question. In relation to the measures for preserving claims, unlike the general loan regulations, “the management and operation rights, the preservation of claims against debtor’s tangible and intangible assets, such as facilities, and the acquisition of transfer of security for all contractual rights” are stipulated (Article 13).

3) Determination as to claims against K (No. 1 of this case)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) A around February 24, 2006 loaned KRW 8 billion to W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), hereinafter “K, regardless of whether before or after the merger.” The above loan was made out of PF loan for the purchase, etc. of land for the construction of a new apartment complex in Daegu-gu X-gu, Daegu-gu, which K promoted, and Defendant B was the president of J Group and the representative director of J Group A, Defendant C as the representative director, and Defendant D approved the instant first loan as a director.

(2) On December 31, 2005, K recorded KRW 55 million per net loss as of December 2005, and served the financial institution’s debt amount of KRW 8.3 billion. On December 2006, K recorded KRW 1.858 billion per net loss as of December 31, 2006, and recorded capital erosion as of KRW 1.8 billion and closed on December 31, 2008.

(3) In examining and approving the instant loan No. 1, Defendant B, C, and D confirmed only the portion of “the full repayment of the loan to be repaid at the 1PF City” as stated in the application for credit approval (Evidence No. 3-1 of the certificate) and “the repayment rate of the loan to be repaid at the 1PF City” in the event that the sale rate of 96% is higher than that of the instant loan, and did not examine the repayment plan. The instant loan No. 1 as a security for the instant loan, on the other hand, the right to preferential benefit was provided to the Y, Daegu-gu, Daegu, and 7 lots, but the amount exceeding the amount stated in the certificate of preferential benefit, and the effective security based on the appraisal value is only about 42.6 million won (the amount divided according to the right to benefit of those persons with preferential interest; hereinafter the same shall apply). Moreover, it is adequate to grasp the ability of debt guarantee for Z, AAB, and AB as joint and several suretys.

(4) The relevant project site had a purchase rate of 12.6%, and the development project was completely suspended due to the cancellation of conditional construction contract with AC and AD, a contractor, as well as AD due to nonperformance of the conditions, and A failed to recover the remaining principal and interest of the loan No. 1 of this case, except for valid collateral, KRW 7.74 billion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, 16 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, Defendant B as the president of J Group and the representative director of A, Defendant C as a director, Defendant D as a director, and Defendant D has the duty of due care or duty of loyalty to take measures to preserve claims, such as examining the borrower’s ability to repay obligations and the feasibility of business in accordance with the mutual savings bank standards, etc. related to PF loans, and securing adequate human and physical security to repay obligations. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the instant first loan by performing the duty of care by neglecting the validity study with respect to K with uncertain ability to repay obligations, and thus, are liable to compensate for damages incurred by A pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

4) Determination as to claims against L (No. 2 of this case)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) A performed a loan of KRW 6 billion to L on January 27, 2006. The above loan was made as a PF loan to purchase the site for the new apartment construction project located in Daegu-gu AE, Daegu-gu, but Defendant B was the president of J Group and the representative director A, Defendant C was the representative director, and Defendant D approved the instant second loan as a director.

(2) However, L did not have the ability to repay the debt until the said loan was made to a new corporation established with capital of KRW 300 million in around 2004, by failing to perform the relevant project, and the security established in the above loan also exceeded the amount of the preferential right to benefit. The effective collateral based on the appraisal value considerably did not exceed the loan amounting to approximately KRW 2.18 billion. The effective collateral based on the appraisal value was substantially limited to the loan amounting to approximately KRW 2.18 billion. The creditor, representative director, director, etc., a joint and several surety, without investigating the income or property status data.

(3) In examining L’s loan, the said Defendants drafted only L’s business plan without examining L’s performance records, authorization and permission matters, the status of securing ownership of the business site, possibility of parcelling-out, etc. In particular, the said Defendants neglected the feasibility of the pertinent development project, including failing to review, although the said report was written prior to the implementation of the said loan, that there was a lot of unsold quantity due to excessive supply of apartment houses in the vicinity of the relevant project site, and that there was a lack of business feasibility due to the fact that the sales price of the relevant development project was set higher than the surrounding market price, and that there was a lack of business feasibility due to concerns over prolonged sale.

(4) The purchase rate of the project site was less than 30%, and the development project was completely suspended by the waiver of the contract for the construction project of AGD Co., Ltd., a contractor, and thereby, A failed to recover KRW 3.882 billion, excluding effective collateral.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 16 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, Defendant B is the president of the J group and the representative director of A, Defendant C is the representative director, Defendant D is jointly and severally liable for damages and delay damages incurred to A due to the above loan, in accordance with Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, since, in handling the loans of this case as a director, Defendant C is liable for compensation for damages and delay damages incurred to A due to the loan of this case by examining the borrower’s ability to repay obligations and business feasibility objectively and closely in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the standards of mutual savings banks, etc. in order to take measures to preserve claims, such as securing adequate human and material security for the repayment of obligations.

5) Determination as to claims against M (No. 3 loans of this case)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On December 26, 2005, A implemented a loan of KRW 6 billion to M. The above loan was made out of PF loan for the purchase of the site for the construction project of the Daegu-gu Apartment-gu apartment complex AH, which was promoted by M., and Defendant B as the president of J group and the representative director A, Defendant C as the representative director, and Defendant D approved the instant third loan as a director.

(2) As of July 2, 2004, M was a corporation established on July 2, 2004, approximately KRW 2.91 billion in assets, and KRW 2.8 billion in debts as of December 2, 2004. The current net losses in 2004 were also KRW 195 million in financial situation, which led to the aggravation of financial status. The first right to benefit provided as security for the above loan also exceeded the amount of the loan stated in the certificate. The effective collateral based on the appraisal value was considerably less than KRW 2.84 billion in the loan. Also, the assets of AI (representative) which was admitted as joint and several sureties did not have property value due to the senior right, and it was difficult to collect financial data, such as income and property status, from AJ and AK, and it was difficult to view that AL corporation had sufficient financial capability of KRW 6.3 billion in the net income of this case as of 204.6 billion in light of the amount of the loan and net income of this case.

(3) In examining and approving the instant third loan, Defendant B, C, and D only sought M’s implementation performance, authorization and permission matters, project site security status, possibility of sale, etc. without examining the project site, and conducted a review on the project outlines, etc. In particular, according to the appraisal report (No. 5 No. 6, No. 47, Nov. 16, 2015) of AM, Defendant B, C, and D presented an opinion to the effect that the relevant project site needs to be sold to the extent that noise, vibration, etc. adjoining to the straight line and located within the old market and the surrounding residential environment is somewhat small enough, and waived the construction contract that was concluded on February 2, 2006 with M and the construction contract.

(4)A project was suspended due to the waiver of a construction contract, and A has not recovered the remainder of the loan of this case 3 billion won except for effective collateral.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 16 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, Defendant B as the president of J Group and the representative director of A, Defendant C as the representative director, Defendant D as a director, and Defendant D as a director, shall objectively and closely examine the borrower’s ability to repay debts and the feasibility of business in accordance with the mutual savings bank standards related to PF loans, etc., and shall take measures to preserve claims, such as securing adequate human and physical security for repayment of debts. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the above duty of care by executing the loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan of this case with uncertain M without neglecting the feasibility study, etc. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the above duty of care, and thus, are liable to compensate for damages incurred to A pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

6) Determination as to claims against N (No. 4 of this case)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On June 21, 2006, A implemented a loan of KRW 3 billion to N. The above loan was made as a PF loan for the purchase of the site for the building site for the Nam-gu Busan AO-gu apartment building project promoted by N., and Defendant B as the president of the J Group and the representative director A, Defendant C as the representative director, and Defendant D as a director approved the instant fourth loan.

(2) As a juristic person established on September 16, 2004, N was in the state of capital erosion of KRW 6.218 billion in assets as of 2005, and KRW 6.54 million in liabilities, and recorded the net loss of KRW 27.7 million in the same year. The security offered with respect to the above loan also exceeds the amount of loan stated in the preferential benefit certificate. The effective security based on the appraisal value was considerably less than KRW 6.45 million in loans. In addition, the assets of AP (representative) and the auditor Q, who was appointed as a joint guarantor, did not have property value due to senior right, and there was no specific investigation into the income and assets of the said joint guarantor.

(3) In examining and approving the instant loans 4, Defendant B, C, and D were to examine only the outlines of business presented by N without examining the N’s performance records, purchase of a project site, approval of a project, possibility of parcelling-out, etc. In particular, as to the expected parcelling-out price presented by N in the application for the credit approval (Evidence 6-1), Defendant B, C, and D stated that “A is somewhat high when considering the sale cases and apartment prices,” and there are many unsold prices in some areas due to a large number of apartment supply prices in Busan city, and there are many unsold prices due to the athletic ties, but there are little concerns about new apartments, and most new sales sites are somewhat somewhat low price reduction compared to the site location of the end-user, and the contract rate was not sufficiently reviewed.

(4) Ultimately, the purchase rate of the project site was less than 52.4%, and the Ndo business was discontinued due to the closure of Ndo, and as a result, A failed to recover the remainder of the principal and interest on the instant loan No. 4, excluding the valid security, KRW 2.355 million.5 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 6, 16 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, Defendant B as the president of the J Group and the representative director A, Defendant C as the representative director, Defendant D as a director, and Defendant D as a director, shall objectively and closely examine the borrower’s ability to repay debts and the feasibility of business in accordance with the mutual savings bank standards related to PF loans, etc., and shall take measures to preserve claims, such as securing adequate human and physical security to repay debts. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the above duty of care by executing the loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan loan of this case by neglecting the validity study with respect to N with uncertain debt repayment ability, etc., and thus, the above Defendants are liable to compensate for damages incurred to A pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

7) Determination as to the claim against T (the loans of this case No. 5)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) A performed a loan of KRW 8 billion to T on May 28, 2007. The above loan was made out of a PF loan for the purchase, etc. of the site for the Housing Project in Daegu-gu AS-U.S., which was acquired by T on May 9, 2007 from AR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AR”), and Defendant C as the representative director, Defendant D as a director, and Defendant E as the audit committee member, approved the instant five loans.

(2) On April 9, 2007, T was a corporation established for the purpose of real estate development business in the Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and no sales amount was transferred to each of the above loans. A’s security offered for the instant loans only exceeds the value stated in the Preferred Rights Certificate, and the effective security based on the appraisal value was considerably less than the loan amounting to KRW 1.272 million. Although T’s representative director and executive officers were jointly and severally guaranteed for the instant loans, it did not receive financial data for the joint and several guarantors and did not grasp the income and property status.

(3) TR acquired a business license from AR to newly construct and sell an apartment unit with 444 households. However, TR failed to purchase the core site of the project and rejected the project approval on December 2009, thereby suspending the project.

(4) Ultimately, A did not recover the remainder of the principal and interest on the instant loan 5, excluding valid collateral, from KRW 6.728 billion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 16 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

As the representative director of Defendant C, when examining and approving the loans of this case as a director, Defendant D neglected to examine the borrower’s ability to repay debts and the feasibility of its business, and failed to take measures to preserve claims, thereby causing damage to A. Since Defendant E neglected the duty to audit and inspect such defective loans, the above Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the damage incurred by A due to the above loans.

C) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant C, D, and E violated the duty of care as a representative director, director, or an audit committee member while examining and approving the loans 5 of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on Defendant C, D, and E is without merit.

① The instant loan is breg loan (breg loan repaid through this PF loan) that is a land purchase fund loan necessary for the implementation of a new project of multi-family housing. This is a form of a representative PF loan handled by a mutual savings bank, which is a second financial right, and thus, a financial transaction that evaluates the feasibility of a specific project related to real estate development and evaluates the future cash flow arising from the relevant project as a principal source of repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. As such, in determining the ability to repay such PF loan, the assessment of feasibility of the relevant real estate development project takes a significant proportion in assessing the ability to repay the relevant PF loan, and only physical and human resources are not the methods of collecting the loan.

② On February 27, 2006, A made a loan of KRW 8,00,00,00 with the land purchase funds, etc. for the Daegu-gu Multi-Family Housing Project. On July 11, 2006, AR transferred the business right related to the implementation of the said project to T on July 9, 2006. After the transfer of AR on May 9, 2007, T intended to purchase the said site of a private teaching institute and increase the sale rate from the previous non-permanent site to the permanent non-permanent site, and requested A to make an additional loan for this purpose. At the same time, T acquired the existing debt of AR and conducted the instant loan of this case to provide additional funds necessary for purchase of the said land. In addition, T failed to secure the entire share of the said site of the project or lost the profit of each of the above loans to the owner of the project, it was necessary to transfer A’s right to use the said land to the owner of the project as the above change of the right to use the loan.

③ However, as not only did TR pay any balance arising from the acquisition of business rights, but also did not pay the sales balance to the seller of the land subject to the said business, TR filed a lawsuit against the seller for the return of the down payment and the intermediate payment (Seoul District Court Decision 2009Gahap6961). Accordingly, it seems that the said business has been delayed due to failure in the procedures for the purchase of the land subject to the business.

④ Since a loan No. 5 of this case was used in the repayment of the existing principal and interest of a R AR to which T has acquired exemption from liability, it is difficult to readily conclude that a new damage has occurred.

8) Determination as to the claim against O (No. 6 of this case)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On September 27, 2005, A implemented a loan of KRW 8 billion toO. The above loan was made as a PF loan for the purchase of the site for the construction project of a complex in the U-U.S., Busan, which was promoted by theO, and Defendant B as the president of the J group and the representative director A, Defendant C as the representative director, and Defendant D as a director.

(2) The O was a corporation established on February 23, 2005. At the time of the 6th loan of this case, A did not submit data to verify financial status, such as financial statements, which was submitted by P, and the security offered on the above loan exceeded the amount stated in the Preferred Rights Certificate, and the effective security based on the appraisal value did not reach the loan amount of KRW 2.366 billion. In addition, E (representative)’s assets entered as a joint guarantor were the property value of KRW 100 million due to prior rights, and E was also liable for the guaranteed obligation of KRW 10 billion. And E was also liable for the guaranteed obligation of KRW 21.6 billion, other joint and several sureties, which were other joint and several sureties. AW Co., Ltd., as a related company, recorded approximately KRW 21.4 billion, KRW 202 billion, KRW 1.81 billion, KRW 1.8 billion, KRW 1.1 billion, per net income as of 2004.

(3) On the other hand, the market research report prepared by AF corporation (Evidence No. 8-3) contains the following: (a) details: (b) on October 29, 2013, excluding the large apartment complex of the 1-Gun Si construction project after the comprehensive measures for real estate development on October 29, 2013; (c) the situation where it is difficult to sell the apartment alternatively; and (d) the sales price higher than the sales price of the apartment near the main building.

(4) In the status of purchasing 72% of the project site, theO’s construction contract agreement with NN on December 7, 2005 was cancelled on June 24, 2006, and the project was discontinued on August 16, 2012 due to the cancellation of the project approval. Accordingly, A failed to recover the remaining principal and interest of 5.634 billion won, excluding valid collateral for the instant 6 loans.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 16 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Defendant B as the president of J Group and the representative director of A, Defendant C as the representative director of the J Group, and Defendant D as a director, when examining and approving the loan of this case of this case of Article 6, was negligent in examining the borrower’s ability to repay debts and business feasibility, and failed to take measures to preserve claims, thereby causing damage to A. As Defendant E was negligent in performing the duty to audit and inspect such defective loan, the above Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages incurred to A due to the loan of this case.

C) Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant B, C, and D violated their duty of care as representative director and director while examining and approving the loans of this case 6. Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to Defendant B, C, and D is without merit.

① The instant loan is breg loan (breg loan repaid through this PF loan) which is a land purchase fund loan necessary for the implementation of a new project of multi-family housing. This is a form of a representative PF loan handled by a mutual savings bank, which is a second financial right, and thus, a financial transaction that evaluates the feasibility of a specific project related to real estate development and evaluates the future cash flow generated from the project as the principal source of repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. As such, in determining the ability to repay such PF loan, the assessment of the feasibility of the relevant real estate development project takes a significant proportion in assessing the ability to repay the relevant PF loan, and only physical and human resources are not the methods of collecting the loan.

(2) In addition, A has been jointly and severally guaranteed by AW Co., Ltd., a related company that recorded net income of at least 20 billion won at the time of the entry of assets, and the effective collateral was created with priority over the right to benefit of 2.366 billion won.

③ On October 29, 2013, the market research report prepared by AF Co., Ltd. includes the following details: (a) excluding large-scale apartment complexes of the 1st unit construction project after the comprehensive measures for real estate on October 29, 2013; (b) the situation where it is difficult to sell them alternatively; and (c) the sales price set higher than the sales price of the neighboring apartment units of the 1st unit construction; (d) however, A, while examining and approving the 6th loan of this case, seems to have set the sales price offered by the O at KRW 870-92 million to KRW 850-8.6 million.

④ From May 30, 2006 after the loan of this case, the O obtained project approval from the competent authority for the new construction of a main complex building (it was revoked on the ground that the approval of the above project was not commenced, but it came to be around August 16, 2012). At the time, the O entered into a construction contract with NN with a major company of the 21st order of nationwide contracting, and the purchase rate of the project site was relatively high to 72%.

9) Determination as to the claim against P (No. 7, 8 of this case)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On December 23, 2005, A implemented a loan of KRW 3.5 billion (the instant loan 7), and KRW 4.0 billion (the instant loan 8) on August 1, 2006. Each of the above loans was made for the purpose of the land purchase and project acquisition funds for the new apartment construction project conducted by P., and Defendant B as the president of the J Group and the representative director of the J Group A, and Defendant C as the representative director of A, and Defendant D approved each of the above loans as a director.

(2) P, on July 22, 2005, was established for the purpose of housing construction and sales in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and was in full diving status of KRW 4,412,00,000 as of December 2, 2005, as of December 2, 2005, net loss of KRW 1,559,000,000 for net loss of the current year as of December 2, 2005.

(3) A, as a security for loans 7, 8 of this case, was jointly provided with the first priority interest in the land AX only, but only exceeds the amount stated in the certificate of priority interest, and the effective collateral based on the appraisal price was considerably less than the amount of the loan. AZ, BA, BB, BC, and B, a joint and several surety, failed to submit documentary evidence of property and income, and its ability to guarantee the debt was uncertain.

(4) While examining and approving the instant loans Nos. 7 and 8, A sought only the project plan presented by P without examining the performance records, authorization and permission matters, the status of securing ownership of the site for the project, possibility of sale, etc. at the time. At the time, the market survey report (Evidence No. 9-6) prepared by AF is an area where accessibility, housing preference, academic group, etc. are located within the BE zone, and if considering the height of the sale of the 2F building that is less than this case, the sale nature is lower, and the 35m urban planning road was planned to be established at the same time, but the number of local class No. 2 rivers passed through the city's budget is less than that of the Si, and the improvement of the site for the project is required, and thus, the loan of this case was approved without thorough examination.

(5) The land purchase rate of the project site is limited to 27%, P was suspended due to failure in the selection of the contractor. Accordingly, A failed to recover the remaining principal and interest on the instant loan 7 from KRW 1.69 billion, excluding valid collateral, and KRW 4 billion for the instant loan 8,000, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9, 10, 16 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, with respect to loans of this case Nos. 7 and 8, Defendant B is the president of J Group and the representative director of A, Defendant C is the representative director, Defendant D is a director, who has objectively and closely examined the borrower’s ability to repay debts and the feasibility of business in accordance with the mutual savings bank standards related to PF loans, etc., and has the duty of care and duty of loyalty to take measures to preserve claims, such as securing adequate human and physical security for repayment of debts. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the above duty of care by executing loans of this case 7 and 8 without neglecting the feasibility study of business with respect to P whose ability to repay debts is uncertain, and thus, are liable to compensate for damages incurred to A pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

10) Determination as to the claim against U (No. 9 of this case)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On September 28, 2007, A implemented a loan of KRW 5 billion to U.S. A. The above loan was made out of the PF loan to prepare part payments for the purchase and payment of the land for the construction of apartment units BH in Busan City, which is acquired by U from BG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BG”), and Defendant C as the representative director, Defendant D as a director, and Defendant E as a member of the audit committee, approved the instant loan of KRW 9.

(2) On September 18, 2007, U was a juristic person established for the purpose of new construction and sale of housing in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and received the instant loan from BG on September 28, 2007. At the same time, U did not submit materials concerning U’s business feasibility, profitability, assets, and other credit and financial standing at the time of the said loan, and there was no materials submitted for BJ (representative) and B (director) as a joint guarantor, and there was no materials concerning the property or income identified as a joint guarantor.

(3) At the time of the PF loan related to the above business, A provided BG with the collateral security right and the first priority right certificate on the 7,153 square meters of land outside Busan Metropolitan City as collateral. However, considering the first priority claim amount of the above joint right certificate, the portion equivalent to the security amount of the above loan is limited to KRW 1.26 billion.6 billion.

(4) At the time of loan No. 9 of this case, A tried to review the project outlines of the project plan submitted by BG, which is an existing project implementer, without examining U’s performance, authorization and permission matters, the status of securing ownership of the project site, possibility of sale, etc. Meanwhile, the market research report (Evidence No. 11-3 of the Evidence No. 11-3) prepared by AF corporation stated that “610-677 million won per square year, which is presented by the main project implementer, is somewhat high to accommodate in the current market, and that the supply and demand situation of the apartment that is planned in Busan is likely to be excessive in consideration of the situation of sale of the apartment in the vicinity of the facilities that are suspected to have been suspected, and that the supply and demand situation of the apartment in the current market is

(5) Ultimately, the purchase rate of the above loan-related business site was 11%, and U was suspended around January 2008. Accordingly, A failed to recover the remaining principal and interest on the loan-related business site of this case, excluding valid collateral, KRW 3.647 billion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 11, and 16 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

(1) Determination of the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, Defendant C is the representative director of Defendant C with respect to the instant loan of this case, Defendant D is obligated to perform the duty of due diligence and loyalty to take measures to preserve claims, such as examining the borrower’s ability to repay obligations and the feasibility of business as a director in accordance with the mutual savings bank standards related to PF loans, and securing adequate human resources and material security for the repayment of obligations. Defendant E is obligated to perform the duty of due diligence and loyalty to audit and inspect it in the position of the audit committee. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the instant loan of this case by executing the instant loan of this case without neglecting the feasibility study with respect to U.S. whose ability to repay obligations is uncertain. Accordingly, Defendant C and D are liable for compensation for damages incurred by Defendant A pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, and Articles 415-2(7) and 414(1) of the Commercial Act.

(2) Determination as to the assertion regarding the loans by Defendant C, D, and E

(A) The defendants' assertion

In the form of receiving the instant loan 9 from U, U.S., the obligation of KRW 4.5 billion to BG’s loan 4.5 billion is exempted, and there was no new loss due to the instant loan 9. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part, premised on the fact that the instant loan 9 incurred a loss to A, is without merit.

(B) Relevant legal principles

In the case of the so-called repayment loan where a financial institution provides a new loan only formally without actually receiving funds, thereby practically extending the term of loans from an obligor at the time of the extension of the term, but if the term is extended, it can only be deemed that a new damage has occurred due to an extension of the term, only when the extension of the term is extended with the knowledge of the debtor's financial situation that the loan will be aggravated to the extent that the financial institution would not recover the loan, and it cannot be concluded that a new damage has occurred to the company equivalent to the amount of the unpaid loan out of the substitute loan, unless such circumstance is revealed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da94585, Oct. 29, 2009).

(C) Determination

Even according to the assertion of this case, Defendant C, D, and E, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the existing loans of BG and U’s loans of U are identical not only to those of the loans of U 9, but also the physical security and the joint guarantor are identical. Therefore, the loan of this case does not constitute a matter that can be applied or applied by analogy to the legal principles on the preferential loan of this case. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

(3) Determination as to Defendant E’s assertion

(A) Defendant E’s assertion

According to the regulations on duties of the audit committee of the mutual savings bank, the duties of the audit committee for loan review are limited to compliance audits, and the method of audit is an ordinary audit method, and therefore, the audit committee merely examines credit application documents for the same person, credit limit of 100 million won in total, investors and related persons, and compliance audits for loans to executives and employees, and it is also ex post facto and practical. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant E on the premise that he/she neglected his/her duty of care for the above duties, on the ground that he/she did not constitute the duties of the audit committee.

(B) Determination

Article 4 of the Regulations on Duties of the Audit Committee of a mutual savings bank provides that ① an auditor shall evaluate the adequacy of accounting standards and accounting systems, accounting information, financial audits that evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and usefulness of financial reports, ② a compliance auditor conducted to check whether the compliance monitoring system in a company established to regularly monitor the compliance system is operated, ③ a work auditor who checks and analyzes the procedures and systems in an organization other than the financial and compliance audit sector in order to evaluate the adequacy and usefulness of the methods and procedures for the management access to risk and control, ④ a management auditor who assists in the achievement of the management objectives of the company, ⑤ a management auditor who evaluates the stability and soundness of IT parts. Article 5 of the Regulations classifys the methods of audits into IT audits: ① an ordinary audit method to review the contents of audits in advance or ex post facto, and ② an ordinary audit method to submit a report, ② a method to improve the management affairs, and ③ a comprehensive audit committee’s performance evaluation method, including compliance method, and a comprehensive audit committee’s performance evaluation method if deemed necessary in accordance with the comprehensive audit and inspection plan.

Defendant E argues to the effect that the review of PF loans is not included in the review of PF loans, because the review of PF loans as an audit committee member of the PF loans may be conducted as a daily audit. However, the matter of compliance audit is limited to the matters concerning punishment of employees, important litigation and arbitration, matters to be observed by the same person, credit application documents, investors and related persons, and matters to be handled by loans to executives and employees in excess of 100 million won in total. However, according to each of the statements in BDa 1 and 2, the agenda of the board of directors falls under the category of business audit, and Article 9-6(2) of the Loan Regulations of the Bank Act provides that "The FF loans committee may pass a resolution only on the agenda decided by the FF loans committee, and the Standing Committee may pass a resolution only on the agenda decided by the FF loans examination committee, and that the examination of loans by providing that "the representative director or executive director shall exercise voting rights through the FF loans examination committee after the ex post facto review of the above matters related to PF loans can be acknowledged as reasons for the ex post review of PF loans.

11) Determination as to the claim for Q Q (the instant loan No. 10)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) A carried out a loan of KRW 6 billion to Q around December 30, 2005. The above loan was made by PF loan, such as down payment and some remainder for the purchase of a new project site for the construction of a new apartment located in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City BN, Ulsan, which was promoted by Q, and Defendant B as the president of the J group and the representative director A, Defendant C as a representative director, and Defendant D as a director, approved the instant loan of KRW 10 as a director.

(2) Q was established on January 22, 1998 for the purpose of housing construction in Ulsan-gu BO, Ulsan-gu. As of December 2, 2004, the assets amounting to KRW 97 million and KRW 3 million for net loss in the current year were partly capital potential.

(3) As a security for the instant loan No. 10, “A” was provided with the second-order beneficial rights to the land and building sites and buildings outside Ulsan-gu BP, Ulsan-gu, and three parcels of land. However, as of April 4, 2012, the appraisal as of the above real estate was caused by KRW 1.888 billion, while the amount of the claim of the senior right holders exceeds the value of the above real estate as a security, the amount of the claim of the senior right holders exceeded the value of the above real estate. ② The joint beneficial rights to the building sites and buildings outside the Ulsan-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul-gu, and the amount of the claim of the joint right holders exceeds KRW 2.75 billion, and the effective collateral amount exceeds KRW 2.95 million. In addition, it is uncertain that the joint and several surety has the ability to guarantee the joint and several sureties, such as the lack of evidentiary documents as to the income and property status of BR, BS, and the joint and several sureties.

(4) While examining the instant loan No. 10, Defendant B, C, and D neglected to conduct a survey on the feasibility of the instant development project, including: (a) the implementation performance of Q Q without examining the implementation performance, authorization and permission matters, the status of securing ownership of the site for the project, and the possibility of sale; and (b) the project outlines, etc.; (c) in particular, Defendant B, C, and D neglected to conduct a survey on the feasibility of the instant development project, by failing to review the content of “the chilling of housing construction, the development of the Ulsan mountain area, the heating volume, and the ratio of the main commercial building in excess of the chilling of housing construction, and the excess of the sales rate and the excess of the supply rate; and (d) the obligor’s ability to repay the debt due to the delay in the selection of the contractor, and there is a possibility of long-term extension.”

(5) Ultimately, the purchase rate of the project site was 14%, and Q was not selected, and the progress of the project was completely interrupted by closing the business on June 25, 2009. Accordingly, A failed to recover the remaining principal and interest on the instant loan No. 10 from KRW 3.25 million, excluding valid collateral, as to the instant loan No. 10.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 12, and 16 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, with respect to the loan 10 of this case, Defendant B as the president of J Group and the representative director of A, Defendant C as the representative director, Defendant D as a director, objectively and closely examined the borrower’s ability to repay debts and the feasibility of business in accordance with the mutual savings bank standards related to PF loans, etc., and to secure adequate human and physical security to repay debts. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the above duty of care by performing the loan 10 of this case without neglecting the feasibility study on Q Q with uncertain ability to repay debts. Thus, the above Defendants are liable to compensate for damages incurred to A pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

12) Determination as to R claims (the loan of this case No. 11)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On October 18, 2005, A implemented a loan of KRW 8 billion to R. The above loan was made out of PF loan for the purpose of purchasing the site for the construction project of an apartment building in Daegu Daegu BU in which R was promoted. Defendant B as the president of the J Group and the representative director A, Defendant C as the representative director, and Defendant D as a director, approved the instant loan of KRW 11 as a director.

(2) On August 12, 2005, R was a corporation established for the purpose of real estate leasing and development business in Daegu-gu BV, Daegu-gu, and at the time of the loan of this case, A did not submit data from R to know the business feasibility, profitability, assets, etc. at the time of the loan of this case (i.e., assets as of December 31, 2005 were approximately KRW 62.843 billion for assets as of December 31, 2005, and liabilities were approximately KRW 62.87 billion for assets as of December 31, 2005), B and B-X entered as a joint guarantor was the real estate in the domicile of another person, and there was no income evidence evidence, and B and B-X did not have any other property other than Y apartment, and the ability of joint and several suretys to guarantee debt is uncertain, such as there was no income data.

(3) As a security for the instant loan No. 11, the first-order right to benefit was provided to 15,536 square meters (the appraisal as of January 20, 201 is KRW 4.6881 billion) of the Gu-U.S. BZ and 27 square meters (the appraisal as of January 20, 201), but considering the amount of the joint-order claim, the effective security for the said right to benefit was limited to KRW 2.34 billion.4 billion.

(4) In examining the loan No. 11 of this case, Defendant B, C, and D merely sought R’s implementation performance, authorization and permission matters, the status of securing ownership of a project site, and the possibility of parcelling-out, etc. In addition, in the report of investigation prepared by AF corporation, Defendant B, C, and D, “If the ordinary parcelling-out price presented by R is lower than 590-63 million won that cannot be admitted in the market,” and “if the ordinary parcelling-out price offered by R is lower than 450-5 million won, it shall be deemed that there was parcelling-out price due to the opening of a residential environment adjacent to the CA industrial complex and residential area, even if the preference is somewhat low (Evidence No. 13-9). However, upon examining the loan No. 11 of this case, A recommended that the usual parcelling-out price would be lower than 10% (Evidence No. 13-165, Jun. 1, 199).

(5) Ultimately, due to the suspension of the instant loan-related enforcement project, A failed to recover the remaining principal and interest of KRW 4.5889 billion, excluding the valid collateral security (as seen below, the amount of transfer exceeds the effective collateral) (A transferred KRW 3.41 billion out of the bonds of KRW 11 to CB limited company on December 1, 201).

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 13, and 16 (including paper numbers);

The purport of all pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, as to the loan 11 of this case, Defendant B is the Chairperson and the representative director of Defendant C, Defendant C is the representative director, Defendant D is a director, and Defendant D is obligated to take measures to preserve claims, such as examining objectively and closely the borrower’s ability to repay obligations and the feasibility of business in accordance with the mutual savings bank standards related to PF loans, and securing adequate human and physical security to repay obligations. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the above duty of care by executing the loan 11 of this case without neglecting the feasibility study with respect to uncertain Rs, and thus, are liable to compensate for damages incurred to A pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act.

13) Determination as to the claim against S (the loans of this case No. 12)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On October 19, 2005, A implemented a loan of KRW 8 billion to S. The loan was made as a PF loan for the purchase of the site for the Daegu-gu Apartment-gu Apartment Complex Construction Project promoted by S, and Defendant B as the president and the representative director of J Group A, Defendant C as the representative director, and Defendant D as a director, approved the instant loan of KRW 12 as a director.

(2) On October 20, 2004, S had been a corporation established for real estate sales business with SeoulCC on and around December 2004 due to the lack of sales, and had already been in a state of capital erosion around December 2004. On December 2005, S had a state of capital erosion in KRW 1.7 billion.

(3) As a security for the instant loan No. 12, the first-order right to benefit was provided with 11 square meters of 792 square meters of the Daegu Suwon-gu CD, etc., but considering the first-order of claim, considering the first-order of claim, the effective security of the said right to benefit was limited to KRW 237 million. In addition, the joint and several surety, as the joint and several surety, CE (representative representative), CF, and CG, did not have any property or property owned by himself/herself, and there was no income supporting the said property value, and thus, the joint and several surety’s ability to guarantee the debt was unclear.

(4) While examining the instant loan No. 12, Defendant B, C, and D were to collect only the project plan presented by S without examining the implementation performance, authorization and permission matters, status of securing ownership of the project site, possibility of sale, etc., and review the project outline, etc.

(5) Around August 2005, S entered into a contract for construction works with CH Co., Ltd. and AD Co., Ltd. on December 24, 2006, but the said contractor waived the contract for construction works due to lack of feasibility, and filed an application for business approval at the Daegu City on November 2005, but it was difficult to implement the said project due to subsequent retirement from the real estate competition and unsold housing lots in the Daegu City on December 2007, and the project progress was completely interrupted by withdrawing the application for business approval around December 2007.

(6) Ultimately, due to the suspension of the instant loan-related enforcement project, A failed to recover KRW 5.9223 billion of the remaining principal and interest remaining after deducting an effective collateral security (as seen below, since the amount of assignment of claims exceeds the effective collateral, it shall be deemed as effective collateral) (A transferred KRW 2.77 billion of the instant loan-related claims to CI Limited on December 30, 201).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 14, 16 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

According to the above facts, with respect to the loans of this case No. 12, Defendant B as the president of J Group and the representative director of A, Defendant C as the representative director, Defendant D as a director, objectively and closely examined the borrower’s ability to repay obligations and the feasibility of business in accordance with the mutual savings bank standards related to PF loans, etc., and to secure adequate human and physical security for repayment of obligations. Nevertheless, the above Defendants neglected to perform the above duty of care by executing the loans of this case No. 12 without neglecting the feasibility study on the loans of this case with uncertain ability to repay obligations. Thus, pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, the above Defendants are liable to compensate for damages incurred to A due to the loans of this case No. 12.

14) Determination as to claims against V (the instant loans No. 13)

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On December 28, 2007, A implemented a loan of KRW 8 billion to V. The said loan was made out of a PF loan for purchasing a new project site for the Ulsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Ulsan-gu, Seoul High Complex (42,352m2, apartment 1,007m2, apartment 1,007 units) that V acquired from CJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CJ”), and Defendant C is the representative director of A, and Defendant D as a director, and Defendant E approved the said loan as a member of the audit committee.

(2) On May 24, 2006, A implemented the PF loan of KRW 8 billion to the CJ (hereinafter referred to as the "existing loan obligation"), and CJ implemented the instant loan of KRW 13 to repay the existing loan to A by taking over the above CJ's existing loan obligation at the same time, while the CJ concluded a sales contract with respect to 90.3% of the project site, and exercising pressure to the Ulsan Metropolitan City Office in relation to traffic impact assessment.

(3) Since then, V acquired a business right from the CJ and promoted a multi-family housing project, but the project was suspended due to the dispute over the failure to purchase the additional land and the transfer and acquisition of a business right by the CL Co., Ltd., a service company for the project site, and A failed to recover KRW 8 billion from the loans of 13 loans of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 15, 16 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

As the representative director of the defendant C, when examining and approving the above loan as a director, the defendant D neglected to examine the borrower's ability to repay debts and the validity of the loan, and failed to take measures to preserve claims, thereby causing damage to A. Since the defendant E neglected the duty to audit and inspect the above defective loan as an audit committee member, the above defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the damage suffered by A due to the above loan.

C) Relevant legal principles

part of the judgment as to U as above see paragraph (2) (b).

D) Determination

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the fact that loans implemented with the loans of this case No. 13 can be recognized as having been used in repaying the existing loans of the CJ to A, while it was possible for V to repay the existing loans at the time of the loans of this case No. 13, but no special circumstance exists, such as that it was impossible for V to repay the loans after the above loans. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be deemed as having incurred separate damages due to the loans of this case No. 13, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

15) Determination on Defendant C and D’s defense of extinctive prescription

A) Defendant C and D’s assertion

The Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint on September 9, 2015, but did not specify the claim amount by each of the instant loans. However, with respect to the instant loans from the preparatory document dated February 25, 2016 to the instant loans, the claim amount by each of the instant loans only was specified in the preparatory document dated April 12, 2016 to the instant loans from February 15, 2016. As to the damage claim for the instant loans from the first to third loans from February 25, 2016, the prescription period is interrupted from February 25, 2016, and the damage claim for the instant loans from the instant loans from the date of the instant loans from April 12, 2016 to the expiration of the prescription period from April 12, 2016 to the damage claim for the instant loans from the date ten years elapsed from the date of the instant loans from February 25, 2016 to February 21, 2016.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) From May 26, 2014 to September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) investigated whether there was a false or unreasonable loan to executives and employees, including A and Defendants; and (b) made an investigation report on liability for fault; and (c) entered in the said investigation report as “the 12 persons, including K and K, and the 60,086 million won,” and attached to the said investigation report as “the statement of unfair dealing with PF loan” (refer to the evidence A (refer to subparagraph 16 of the same Act) stated the amount of loan, the balance of loan, the date of loan, the joint and several sureties, the details of the loan, the amount of the bond, the amount of liability for fault, the amount of liability for fault, the amount of liability for fault, the amount of liability for each related person, and the amount of liability for each related person.

(2) On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff received the instant complaint to the instant court. The said complaint stated that “A loan to 12 persons, including K and K,” “AF loan to 83,50 million won in total for 12 persons, including K and K,” “PF loan to 60,086 million won in total (83,50 million won in loan handling amount - effective collateral and weather exchange amount to 23,414 million won), Defendant B shall be 41,871 million won in total, Defendant C shall be 60,86 million won in total, Defendant D shall be 60,086 million won in total, Defendant E and Defendant E shall be 18,215 million won in total, and evidentiary documents shall be attached only to the Plaintiff.”

(3) On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff indicated the loans Nos. 1 through 8 of this case in the preparatory documents as of February 25, 2016, each of the Borrower, the amount of the loans, the cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and the amount of the obligations for the loans No. 9 through 13 in the preparatory documents as of April 12, 2016.

B) Relevant legal principles

The reason for the existence of the prescription system lies in respecting the permanent state of fact and not protecting a potential person above the right, and in particular, the latter is meaningful at the extinctive prescription. As such, if a right holder expresses that he/she is not a locked person above the right by claiming a judicial right, the interruption of prescription becomes a ground for interrupting prescription. As such, a judicial claim on the ground of interruption of prescription is not limited to a request for performance or confirmation of the right itself subject to the extinctive prescription, but also where a claim is asserted in the form of a lawsuit on the basis of the basic legal relationship created by the right, it shall be deemed as included in the case where it can be deemed that he/she expressed that he/she is not a locked person above the right. It is not necessary to consider a judicial claim, the cause for interrupting prescription, which is a cause for interrupting prescription, consistent with the scope of res judicata effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da19737, Jul. 14, 2011).

C) Determination

Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances are stated in the investigation report on defective liability, i.e., ① the 12 persons, including K and K, and the 60,086 million won, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., the statement in the investigation report on defective liability, i.e., the sum of 13 cases, 83,50 million won for 12 persons, including K and K, and the statement in the same manner as the complaint in the case, i.e., the sum of 13 cases, 83,50 million won for 12 persons, including K and K, and 60,086 million won for losses, ii) the details of the "PF unfair loan treatment" attached to the investigation report on defective liability, i.e., the loan amount by each type of loan in this case, i., the amount of the loan in this case, i.e., the amount of the loan in this case, i., 3000 or 10.

B. Determination on the claim for damages related to embezzlement

1) Facts of recognition

A) Status of Defendant B and F

(1) From March 20, 2003 to May 18, 2006 to the president and the representative director of J Group I, and from July 7, 2008 to the representative director of A, Defendant B served as the representative director of J Group. On May 6, 2012 to the time when the duties of the representative director of each of the above savings bank were suspended, Defendant B served as the representative director of J-affiliated Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as “CN”) of the J-affiliated Savings Bank, and was finally determined on May 6, 2012 to the time when the duties of the representative director of each of the above savings bank were suspended.

(2) From July 19, 2006 to August 27, 2009, Defendant F served as the representative director of I and took overall control of the overall tasks, such as the receipt, receipt, management, and execution of funds. From August 28, 2009 to August 31, 2010, Defendant F served as the president of the J Group and assisted Defendant B and managed the overall tasks of the Group.

B) Corporate governance of J Group

Defendant B is the largest shareholder who holds 43.7% of the CN shares serving as the parent company of the Group and 97.5% of the shares in the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “CO”) and controls each of the above companies by holding 26.1% of the I shares and 91.4% of the CP shares through CN, holding 100% of the CP shares through the CO, and the I holds 100% of the shares in the J Group A and others, thereby controlling the said bank. Based on these governance structure, Defendant B has exercised a dominant influence over the overall operation of the J Group.

C) Construction costs and life-saving gift expenses

(1) Defendant B, without going through normal accounting management, raised the so-called funds with the funds of A under his control and raised them for personal use.

(2) Defendant B, through I’s General Secretary CN Section, the mother company of the J group, and continued to perform its duties, such as Domination and personnel management, paid a certain amount to A’s normal construction cost, and received a refund from Defendant B’s head of the division of the division of the business management division through CDR. The CS, upon Defendant B’s instructions, instructed Defendant B to raise funds by means of receiving a refund of a certain amount. From February 6, 2006 to February 20, 2012, the CS, upon receiving Defendant B’s instructions, paid a certain amount to A’s general construction cost, electricity, telecommunications construction cost, futures sales cost, etc. for 40 times from the end of 2003 to the beginning of 2004, and then received funds in cash from the relevant company, and thereafter, collected funds from the relevant company, such as Seoul, etc., and then embezzled funds from each of the following individual embezzlements: (i) KRW 1500,500,00 won.

D) relating to loan solicitation fees

(1) The Defendant B and F, as an agency for financing loans from the affiliated savings bank, including I and A, made a resolution to allow the Plaintiff to pay the loan recruitment fees that may not be paid to the I and affiliated savings bank, while taking measures to realize the profit of Q Q, which Defendant B indirectly owns all shares through the CO and ultimately reverted the profit to Defendant B.

(2) Accordingly, around August 2008, Defendant F instructed Nonparty CT to choose the processing fees to be paid along with the above contents at the I principal office, and CT to choose the processing fees together with the CU of staff members of the planning division, and set the amount of processing fees to be paid, and then, the employee in charge of the business was included in the attached Form 3 loan recruitment fees in the attached Table 6 times from January 22, 2009 to July 10, 2009, because C Q Q did not have any reason to pay the loan recruitment fees, even if there was no reason to pay the loan recruitment fees, it embezzled it to Q Q by having it pay a total of KRW 560 million in the form of the loan fees to CV and the CW Resolution Co. 16 (Embezzlement act of embezzlement of this case).

E) Progress of criminal trial

The Prosecutor’s Office indicted the executives and employees of the J Group, including Defendant B and F, in relation to the act of embezzlement, including the embezzlement of Articles 14 through 16 of the instant case, the Seoul Central District Court 2012Da695, 1210 (combined). On May 29, 2013, the said court convicted him/her of the embezzlement of Articles 14 through 16 of the instant case. The said judgment was finalized after the appellate court and the final appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 17 through 19 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

According to the above facts, since Defendant B, as the representative director of Defendant B, violated the law and thereby inflicted damage on A by embezzlement of Articles 14 through 16 of this case, Defendant B is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage caused by embezzlement of Articles 14 through 16 of the Commercial Act pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act, and Defendant F, in collusion with Defendant B, caused damage to A by embezzlement of Articles 16 through 16 of the Commercial Act. As such, Defendant B is jointly liable to compensate for the damage caused by embezzlement of Article 760 of the Civil Act.

4. Scope of liability for damages

A. Calculation of damages

In accordance with the above judgment, the amount of damages (A) suffered by A due to the loan of this case Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 12, and embezzlement of this case 14 through 16, for which the violation of the law and the neglect of duties of the Defendants were recognized, are as shown in the column of damages (A) in attached Form 4.

B. Limitation on liability

1) Relevant legal principles

In cases where a director or an auditor is liable for damages to a company as he/she commits an act in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation or neglects his/her duties, the scope of compensation for damages may be limited in light of the principle of fair compensation system, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the content and nature of the pertinent business, the background leading up to the pertinent director or auditor’s breach of duties and the manner leading up to such violation, objective circumstances or degree involved in the occurrence and expansion of damages to the company, contribution to the relevant director or auditor, the pertinent director or auditor’s profit from such a violation, the pertinent director or auditor’s profit from such a violation, existence of a company’s organizational structure, or establishment of a risk management system, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19603, Nov. 30

2) Regarding each of the instant loans

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the oral argument, the following circumstances are revealed: (a) it seems that structural problems caused damage due to A’s business practices such as formal loan review process or detailed audit; (b) it appears that Defendant B ordered the K group’s overall performance of duties; and (c) it appears that it would not have been easy for Defendant C, directors, and audit committee members to make a decision different from Defendant B’s instructions; (d) it appears that Defendant C, D, and E did not approve each of the instant loans in order to acquire personal benefits; (d) the mutual savings bank like A merely lent loans to those who are relatively low in the market structure or credit rating; (d) it appears that the actual status of the above Defendants at the time of each of the above loans, the degree of duty and the degree of duty; and (d) it appears that the damages amount of each of the above Defendants’ respective profits acquired by Defendant C, C, D, and E appears to have been reduced by 10% of the damages amount during the pertinent loan process, 60% of the damages amount of the Defendant E-1.

3) Regarding embezzlement of 16 of the instant case

The aforementioned facts are established in light of the following circumstances, i.e., the status of Defendant B and F, the degree of violation of laws and subordinate statutes, the background of the embezzlement of this case, whether the above Defendants directly acquired profits through the embezzlement of this case, and all other circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the pleading of this case, the amount of damages arising from the embezzlement of this case is 60%, and the amount of damages for Defendant F is 20%, and the amount of damages for Defendant B’s embezzlement of this case is limited to 14 and 15% (related to the embezzlement of this case, Defendant B’s liability is not limited).

C. Relation to partial claims

1) When a director acts in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation or neglects his/her duties to compensate the company for damages, the scope of damages can be limited in light of the ideology of the damage compensation system, which is fair sharing of damages. In cases where the plaintiff claims part of the amount of damages, limiting the amount of damages, if the amount of damages calculated by applying the reasons for mitigation of liability or the ratio of limitation on liability in total amount of damages does not exceed the amount of partial claims, it shall be deemed that the party's ordinary intent is to seek citing the amount of partial claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da819, Jun. 22, 1976; 2006Da5550, Dec. 11, 2008).

2) Accordingly, the lesser of the recognized amount of loss and the claimed amount in the cited amount table shall be the final quoted amount.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to each of the above loans of this case, the defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages in the table No. 1 to No. 4, 7, and 12 of the cited Amount Table No. 1 to 4, and each of the above defendants is jointly and severally liable for damages in the same order No. 1 to 5, and as to this, "the initial date of calculation of damages in the same order No. 1 to 4, the next day of service of the complaint of this case to each of the above defendants" is 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until February 7, 2017, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day of this case to the date of full payment. The defendants are liable for damages in the table No. 1 to 14, 15, and 20% of the cited Amount No. 1 to the 70% annual interest rate per annum of this case to the 15% interest rate per annum of this case.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed.

Judges before the presiding judge

Judges Loatather

Justices Kim Jae-su

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.