(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.28 2015나40653

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.28 2015나40653

부당이득금반환 등

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as Defendant C, KRW 43,500,00 and their respective money.

Reasons

1. The grounds for this part of the judgment on the basic facts and defense prior to the merits are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court (from the second to the third to the nineth under the second to the second). Accordingly, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties: (a) even if the Defendants’ right to claim remuneration is recognized as a director or auditor under D, there was no provision of the articles of incorporation or a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders to determine remuneration for the Defendants; and (b) thus, the amount in the name of benefits received by the Defendants from D ought to be returned as unjust enrichment as the amount paid without any

In electively, although the Defendants, registered as D’s directors and auditors, did not attend the board of directors and did not perform their duties as directors, the Defendants directly or indirectly involved in the payment of the aforementioned money, and thereby caused damage to D, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they should bear liability for damages arising from such illegal acts together with the officers and employees of A.

③ In addition, in the case of Defendant B, after remanding the case, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to make installment payments of KRW 44750,000,000 that he received on April 23, 2013 (A12-1) and subsequently selected to the effect that the Plaintiff is liable to return under such an agreement.

As to this, the Defendants are ① one beneficial shareholder of D is a company A, and remuneration has been paid to the Defendants according to the A’s approval. Therefore, the same should be deemed to have been resolved by the general meeting of shareholders on the payment of remuneration to the Defendants.

② In addition, the Defendants were not involved in or aided the management’s occupational embezzlement or breach of trust, which is a shareholder of D-1, and the Defendants’ remuneration received by the Defendants is not excessive.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2016나16299

-대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2014다225359 판결

-대법원 2015.07.23 2014다225359

-대구지방법원 2017.02.15 2016나306052

-대법원 2015. 8. 27. 선고 2015다214202 판결