205 Gohap 59739 Damage, (as referred to in this paragraph)

1 through 5

1 through 10

December 21, 2006

January 11, 2007

1. (A) Defendants 7 and 8 shall be jointly and severally and severally recorded with the Defendants listed in the above paragraph (1) to 1, 543, 601, 414 won, and (2) to 1,423, 93, 569 won out of the amount described in the above paragraph (1) to 3, 417, 960, 445 won, and (2) to 3, 63, 67, 7, and 8 of the above paragraph to 2, within the extent of the inherited property of the deceased, and (3) to 1, 69, 60, 75 won to 3, 65 won to 3, 65 won to 3, 65 won to 3, 60, 60, 78, 17, and 88 of the above paragraph (1) to 1 to 6, 60, 607, 17, 78

2. (1) The remainder of the plaintiff 1's claim against the defendant 1 through 8 and the claim against the defendant 9 (2) the remainder of the claim against the plaintiff 2's defendant 1 through 8 and the claim against the defendant 9 and 10, (3) the remainder of the claim against the plaintiff 3's defendant 1 through 6 and the claim against the defendant 9, (4) the remainder of the claim against the plaintiff 4's defendant 1 through 6 and the claim against the defendant 9, (5) the remainder of the claim against the plaintiff 5's defendant 1 through 6, and the claim against the defendant 9 are dismissed.

3. Text 4. Paragraph 1 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

(1) As to Plaintiff 1, Defendant 7, 8, and 9, Defendants 1 through 6, respectively, jointly and severally, KRW 10,00,00, and KRW 00; and Defendant 1 through 6, respectively.

1,66, 666, and 666 won, respectively, and (2) to Plaintiff 2, and Defendant 7, 8, 9, and 10

4,744, 130, 220 won jointly and severally, and Defendant 1 through 6 shall be jointly and severally and severally with each of the above Defendants.

Each 790, 688, 370 won, and (3) to Plaintiff 3, Defendant 7, 8, and 9 shall be jointly and severally and severally 500,000,000 won, and Defendant 1

through 6 shall be jointly and severally with each of the above defendants to KRW 83,33,333, and (4) to Plaintiff 4, respectively.

High 7, 8, and 9 are jointly and severally liable for 547, 592, 326 won, and Defendant 1 through 6 are jointly and severally liable for 547, 592, and the above Defendants.

91,265,387 won among the money, and (5) to Plaintiff 5, Defendant 7, 8, and 9 to Plaintiff 221,059,723 won jointly and severally;

Defendant 1 through 6 shall pay each of the above amounts in 36,843,287 won, jointly or severally with each of the above Defendants.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged without dispute between the parties, or by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each part of Gap evidence No. 1, etc., and part of the other items, such as Gap evidence No. 21, which are contrary thereto, are not trustable.

A. The status of the party (1) A General Finance (State) was declared bankrupt on March 31, 199, and after December 7, 2001, the Plaintiff 1 was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy. B General Finance (State) was declared bankrupt on October 18, 1999, and thereafter taken over the litigation procedure by changing it to Plaintiff 2, and C General Finance (State) was transferred to the trustee in bankruptcy.

9. After being declared bankrupt, the bankruptcy trustee changed to Plaintiff 3 and took over the proceedings. On the other hand, the bank was merged with Plaintiff 4 on December 31, 2001 by the banking sector. (2) The deceased decided the major policies on the management of the non-party company as the chairperson of the group A to which the non-party company and the non-party company belong from July 1987 to July 200, as the actual owner of the non-party company. The defendant 7 decided the major policies on the management of the non-party company as the representative director of the non-party company from March 7, 1995 to December 26, 197. The defendant 8 took charge of general affairs, accounting, personnel affairs, funds, etc. while working as the representative director of the non-party company from March 7, 1995 to December 26, 197.

7. From May 1 to January 21, 1999, the non-party company was in charge of accounting and accounting while serving as managing director of the non-party company. The defendant 9 was from November 1, 1986 to January 9, 199; and the defendant 10 from November 1, 1986 to November 1, 1996 to 196.

1. By June 18, 2003, the deceased was employed as the auditor of each non-party company. (3) On June 2, 2003, the deceased died, and the defendant 1 through 6, who is his children, were co-inheritors with each 1/6 shares. On August 19, 2003, the above Defendants reported a fixed approval with Seoul Family Court Decision 2003Ra5802, and received the said report on August 26, 2003.

B. The deceased, the president of the non-party company's window dressing settlement (1) of the non-party company's window dressing settlement (1) ordered the non-party company's officers, such as the representative director of the non-party company, to settle the window dressing settlement in order to reduce the state of deficit and capital, and accordingly, the non-party company's window dressing settlement was conducted when the deficit was accumulated for a considerable period of time after incorporation into the group A around July 1987. However, if the non-party company conducts the true settlement of accounts in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, it is apprehended that the foreign confidence would not be newly extended from the financial institution due to the significant decline in the foreign confidence and that the pressure to recover existing loans and corporate bonds would be aggravated.

(2) On March 7, 1995, Defendant 7, after being appointed as the representative director of the non-party company, prepared the financial statements for the 1994 fiscal year in normal from Defendant 8 of the managing director containing the accounting and accounting, and prepared the false financial statements as if there were the blacks of KRW 700 million and the equity capital equivalent to KRW 12.2 billion in terms of the adjustment of profits, etc., and upon receiving a report that "the settlement of accounts was made in the past," he approved Defendant 8 to perform the window dressing as in the past financial statements for the 1994 fiscal year, and even if the financial statements for the 1995 fiscal year and 196 fiscal year were prepared, Defendant 8 approved the window dressing settlement as in the past financial statements for the settlement of accounts of 194 fiscal year.

(3) Defendant 8 obtained the approval of the window dressing settlement as above from Defendant 7 in 194, and (1) as a result of the settlement of accounts in 194; (2) the net income for the fiscal year is as follows: (a) the net income is as follows: (b) a large amount of deficit and capital loss in the amount of KRW 14 billion; (c) despite the occurrence of large amounts of deficit and capital loss in the amount of KRW 14 billion; (d) a false financial statement was prepared as if the amount of net income was under payment of the loan; and (e) a financial statement was audited by an accounting firm as if the amount was under payment of the loan; and (e) a financial statement was under payment of the amount of KRW 76,158 million; and (e) a false financial statement was

3. Around 30.30: (2) A public notice was made at around 1995 at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (3) A public notice was made at around 1995 at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (2) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (3) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (4) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (4) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (3) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (4) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (4) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (5) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year; (5) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent 9.7 billion won accounting year; (5) A public notice was made at the end of each of the pertinent fiscal year; (5) A public notice was made at the end of the pertinent fiscal year nine hundred and nine billion won.

C. From around 1995 to around 1998, the non-party company engaged in each financial transaction as described in the attached Table of Financial Transactions. In each financial transaction, the non-party company received financial statements, audit report, etc. for the past three years from the non-party company and examined the credit rating of the non-party company based on them. After entering into a bill transaction agreement, the non-party company's financial transaction Category B and C did not submit separate documents within the limit of the credit limit set as above and did not cause the non-party company to guarantee individual bills as stated in the same list of contents. The non-party company's financial statements for the fiscal year from around 1995 to around 1998 were prepared, and the non-party company's credit limit was determined based on trust and trust in the contents of each financial transaction. After entering into a bill transaction agreement, the non-party company's financial transaction was determined.

D. (1) The non-party company suffered financial difficulties after the non-party company suffered financial losses, and on October 28, 1998, the non-party company defaulted, and on April 23, 1999.

After the company reorganization procedure was commenced on March 3, 2006, the company name was changed on July 26, 2006.

(2) Since the non-party company was unable to repay its corporate bonds due to its default, the non-party company paid the corporate bonds of KRW 10 billion on behalf of the non-party company pursuant to the corporate bond payment guarantee agreement. Since then, the non-party company recovered KRW 1,456,398,586 from the non-party company and did not pay the unpaid amount of KRW 8,543,601,414 ( = 10 billion - 1,456, 398,586).

(3) On the other hand, the non-party 2 was unable to repay the amount of 17 billion won of the non-party 4 70,000 won for the above non-party 9 - 70,000 won for the non-party 9 - 17,000 won for the non-party 5 - 97,000 won for the non-party 9 - 70,000 won for the non-party 9 - 17,000 won for the non-party 9 - 97,000 won for the non-party 9 - 97,000 won for the non-party 15,000 won for the non-party 9 - 97,000 won for the non-party 15,000 won for the non-party 2's non-party 97,000 won for the non-party 196,000 won for the non-party 3

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 1 through 8

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, at the time of the preparation of the financial statements of the non-party company 194, 1995, 1996, the deceased, as the actual owner of the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's 194, 1995, and 196, when the non-party company's chairperson was in a state of deficit and capital impairment, if the non-party company's accounting was able to keep its true accounts in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, it is unlikely to obtain new loans from financial institutions as a result of a significant decline in external confidence, and as well as to cause difficulties in its management due to increased pressure to collect existing loans and corporate bonds, the non-party company's representative director and the non-party company's representative director, who was the representative director of the non-party company, ordered the non-party company's 7, 199, 195, 196 financial statements of the non-party company's 199, 195, and 198, 3000.

The above damages are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs, and the defendant 1 through 6 who reported a fixed approval as co-inheritors of the deceased, within the limit of the inherited properties from each deceased, shall be jointly and severally liable with the above defendant 7 and 8 pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act to compensate the plaintiffs for each of the above damages (the plaintiffs claim against the defendant 1 through 6 for the payment of damages according to their respective inheritance shares of 1/6, but the above defendants are liable within the limit of their property inherited from each deceased, since the qualified acceptance report was accepted, and therefore the above defendants claim against the above defendants against the above defendants is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and all of the exceeding parts are without merit).

B. Scope of damages (1) Parties’ assertion

① The Plaintiff 1 asserts that he/she sustained damages equivalent to KRW 10 billion by subrogation of the non-party company’s corporate bonds, and that he/she jointly and severally with Defendant 7 and 8, and with Defendant 1 through 6, respectively, KRW 1,66, 66, 666 out of the above amount ( = 10 billion KRW x 1/66)

(2) The plaintiff 2 shall seek payment of the outstanding amount of 4,74,130,220 won out of the amount subrogated by the non-party 2, and the defendant 7 and 8 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the unpaid amount of 4,74, 130, 220 won, and the defendant 1 through 65 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount of 790,68, 370 won ( = 4,74, 130, 220 x 1/6) to the non-party 2, to the non-party 2, to the non-party 32, to the non-party 2, to whom the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount of 75 billion won, to the non-party 2, to whom the non-party 3 and the non-party 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of 370 million won, to the non-party 37 and 38.

As to this, Defendant 1-8’s legal representative asserts that, with respect to each unrefied amount of damages claimed by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, and 5 as damages, the amount should be deducted from each of the above amounts because the non-party company paid 1,326, 169, 775 won to Class B, and 1,326, 169, 775 won to Class C, and 1,454, 923, 967 won to Class C, and 80,298,914 won to Plaintiff 5, respectively. (2) judgment is made.

살피건대, 위 인정사실에 의하면, ① A종금은 소외 회사의 부도 이후 회사채지 급보증약정에 따라 소외 회사의 회사채 100억 원을 대위변제하였다가 이후 소외 회사로부터 1, 456, 398, 586원을 회수하였으니, A종금의 미회수 대위변제금 상당 손해액은 8, 543, 601, 414원 ( = 100억 원 - 1, 456, 398, 586원 ) 이 되고, ② B종금은 소외 회사의 부도 이후 각 어음보증약정에 따라 소외 회사의 약속어음금 170억 원을 대위변제하였다가 이후 소외 회사 등으로부터 총 13, 582, 039, 555원 ( = 원고 2가 자인하는 12, 255, 869, 780원 + 소외 회사가 추가로 변제한 1, 326, 169, 775원 ) 을 회수하였으니, B종금의 미회수 대위변제금 상당 손해액은 3, 417, 960, 445원 ( = 17, 000, 000, 000원 - 13, 582, 039, 555원 ) 이 되고, ③ C종금은 소외 회사의 부도 이후 각 어음보증약정에 따라 소외 회사의 약속어음 금 19, 146, 515, 814원을 대위변제하였다가 이후 소외 회사로부터 10, 191, 990, 101원 ( = 원고 3이 자인하는 8, 737, 066, 134원 + 소외 회사가 추가로 변제한 1, 454, 923, 967원 ) 을 회수하였으니, C종금의 미회수 대위변제금 상당 손해액은 8, 954, 525, 713원 ( = 19, 146, 515, 814원 - 10, 191, 990, 101원 ) 이 되고, ④ 원고 4는 소외 회사의 부도로 당좌대출약정에 따른 대출금 953, 993, 599원을 변제받지 못하였다가 이후 위 대출금채권을 제3자에게 매각하는 방법으로 406, 401, 273원을 회수하였으니, 원고 4의 미회수 대출금 상당 손해액은 547, 592, 326원 ( = 953, 993, 599원 - 406, 401, 273원 ) 이 되고 ( 이 법원의 주식회사에 대한 사실조회결과에서는, 소외 회사가 원고 4에 대한 대출금채무와 관련하여 추가로 133, 337, 006원을 변제한 것으로 되어 있으나, 이는 원고 4의 손해의 일부를 변제한 것이 아니라, 원고 4로부터 위 대출금채권을 양수한 제3자에게 대출금채무를 변제한 것으로 보인다 ), ⑤ 원고 5는 소외 회사의 부도 등으로 인해 당좌대출약정에 따른 대출금 558, 018, 730원을 변제받지 못하였다가 이후 A반도체로부터 2억 7, 800만 원을 회수하고, 위 대출금채권 중 110, 265, 485원 상당을 제3자에게 매각하는 방법으로 58, 959, 007원을 각 회수하였으니, 원고 5의 미회수 대출금 상당 손해액은 221, 059, 723원 ( = 558, 018, 730원 - 2억 7, 800만 원 - 58, 959, 007원 ) 이 된다 ( 이 법원의 주식회사 씨앤우방이엔씨에 대한 사실조회결과에서는, 소외 회사가 원고 5에 대한 대출금채무와 관련하여 추가로 80, 298, 914원 ( = 2, 353, 245원 + 77, 945, 669원 ) 을 변제한 것으로 되어 있으나, 이는 원고 5로부터 위 대출금채권 중 일부를 양수한 제3자에게 변제한 것으로 보여 원고 5의 손해의 일부가 변제된 것으로 볼 수 없고, 달리 소외 회사가 원고 5에게 추가로 위 80, 298, 914원을 변제하였음을 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 피고 1 내지 6 , 7, 8의 소송대리인의 원고 5에 대한 위 추가변제 주장은 이유 없다 ) .

Therefore, ① Defendant 1, 7, and 8 are jointly and severally liable to the above 8, 53, 601, and 414; Defendant 1 through 6 are jointly and severally liable to each of the above 1,423, 93, 569 won ( = 8, 543, 601, 414 x 1/6) within the extent of the deceased’s property inherited from each of the above 7, 360 won to the defendant 2, 375, 460, 460, 445; and 1 through 6750, 3750, 675, 500 won to the defendant 2; and 3750,000 won to the defendant 2; and 3650,000 won to the defendant 2, within the extent of the property inherited from each of the deceased; 369,660,074 won to each of the above 375 billion won.

3. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 9 and the claims against the defendant 10 by the plaintiff 2

A. The assertion

The plaintiffs' attorney held office as the auditor of the non-party company at the time of the preparation and public announcement of each window dressing settlement statement in the 1994, 195, and 196 fiscal year. The defendant 10 was in office as the auditor of the non-party company at the time of the preparation and public announcement of the window dressing settlement statement in the 1994 fiscal year. The defendant 9 and 10 knew of the non-party company's window dressing settlement statement at the time of the above employment and did not discover the window dressing settlement of the non-party company's window dressing settlement, but did not know it intentionally or by gross negligence, thereby causing damages to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 414 (2) of the Commercial Act, the defendant 9 was jointly and severally liable with the defendant 1 through 8, and the defendant 1 was jointly and severally liable with the plaintiff 4,744, 130, 2200 won to the plaintiff 1, 2529 to the plaintiff 24, 25295 and 257

B. Determination

In addition, Defendant 9 and Defendant 10 neglected to perform their duties with bad faith or gross negligence by being aware of the window dressing settlement of the non-party company at the time of the preparation and public announcement of each window dressing settlement statement of the 1994, 1995, and 196 fiscal year, at the time of the preparation and public announcement of the 194 fiscal year, Defendant 10 served as an auditor of each non-party company. However, Defendant 9 and 10 neglected to perform their duties with bad faith or gross negligence by failing to discover the window dressing settlement of the non-party company, even though they were aware of the window dressing settlement of the non-party company at the time of the above employment.

As to this point, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 9 and the claims against the defendant 10 by the plaintiff 2 against the defendant 10 are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims against the plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 against the defendants 7 and 8 are accepted in its reasoning. The claims against the plaintiffs 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs 7 and 8 and the plaintiffs 1 through 6 are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the claims against the plaintiffs 1 and 6 is dismissed without merit. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 9 and the claims against the defendant 2 against the defendant 10 are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-ho

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Cho Jin-young

A person shall be appointed.