Whether shareholders can exercise their claims on behalf of shareholders in the position of shareholders.

The fact that the plaintiff is a shareholder of the non-party company cannot only claim damages of the non-party company, but also can not claim damages of the non-party company.

Article 404 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (64A3915) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 64Da3915)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,286,031 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from August 15, 1962 to the full payment system.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution, and the defendant's attorney shall dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

It is argued that litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's attorney is dismissed.

The appeal cost is assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff's attorney, as a shareholder of the plaintiff company's total shares of the non-party 1, the above non-party company, as a shareholder of the plaintiff company, was acquired by deception from the defendant on August 14, 1962, one copy of the guarantee check of KRW 4,286,031 at the par value of the issuance of the Cheongcheon branch of the Japanese Bank Cheongcheon Bank, which is an individual company, and therefore, the above non-party company's losses arising from this deception are the personal losses of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant's tort caused the plaintiff's tort to be paid for the above losses and delayed damages caused by the plaintiff's tort, and that the defendant's attorney actively denied it. Accordingly, even if the non-party 1 company is the individual company belonging to the plaintiff company, as alleged by the plaintiff, which is a legal entity as a unit of the social economic system, if the company suffered losses to the above non-party company, which is a shareholder of the company, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a tort's damages.

Next, even if the plaintiff did not have the right to claim the damages of the non-party company, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is a shareholder of the non-party company's total shares as a shareholder of the non-party company, and that the plaintiff cannot claim the damages of the non-party company on the sole basis of the mere fact that the non-party company is a shareholder of the non-party company. In addition, in order to claim the damages of the non-party company on behalf of the above non-party company, the plaintiff must have the right to claim the damages of the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company, and it cannot be claimed by subrogation

If so, the plaintiff's main claim is without merit, which is premised on the plaintiff's damage to the plaintiff and the right to claim by subrogation of the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed. The judgment of the court below with different conclusions cannot be revoked, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, so it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 96, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)