beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From January 2015 to October 31 of the same year, the Plaintiff supplied goods equivalent to KRW 17,107,200 to E (hereinafter “E”) from January 2015, and received KRW 1,515,200 among them, and has a claim for the amount of KRW 15,592,000 at present.
B. Defendant B was registered as the representative director, Defendant C was an internal director, and Defendant D was listed as an auditor on the entire corporate registration certificate.
C. On February 29, 2016, E closed its business, and yet, E has failed to pay the purchase-price for the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff neglected to perform their duties intentionally or by gross negligence, and caused damages to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was unable to receive the claim for the payment of goods E, and thus, are jointly and severally liable to compensate for such damages.
B. Determination 1) The act of neglecting duties by intention or gross negligence requires an illegal circumstance as an act of violating the duty of care and good faith of a director, and the fact that the performance of the company’s obligation due to ordinary tradeal transactions causes damage to the other party merely due to the fact that the company was able to perform its obligation, cannot be said to be an unlawful act of neglecting the duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2490, Nov. 12, 1985). 2) In light of the above legal principles as to whether the Defendants’ liability for damages was recognized, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants caused damage to the Plaintiff by neglecting the duty of care by intention or gross negligence solely on the basis that the Plaintiff was unable to
In addition, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is a significant unreasonable act or an extraordinary work execution in a situation where the Defendants could objectively inflict damage on a third party as a director and auditor of E.