1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The first instance court cited the Plaintiff’s main claim and dismissed the remainder of the counterclaim by citing part of the Defendant’s main claim.

Accordingly, only the plaintiff appealed against the part against the plaintiff among the counterclaim part of the judgment of the court of first instance, so only this part constitutes the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The basic facts;

3. The reasoning for this part of the judgment regarding the Defendant’s damage claim against the Plaintiff is as follows, except for adding a judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion additionally raised in the trial below or supplementing part of the judgment of the first instance, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment. As such, this part shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 4

Furthermore, at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the executives of the former D knew that “the Plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to avoid sexual harassment.” In addition, around 2008, the Plaintiff knew the relevant facts to the director or auditor present at the board of directors, and H, the representative audit committee of the former D, also known the relevant facts. Therefore, the Defendant’s damage claim related to the counterclaim was extinguished as long as the instant counterclaim was filed “after the lapse of 3 years from the date when H knew of the said fact.” (2) Determination A) related legal principles (1) related to (i) the short-term point of calculating the statute of limitations for the claim for damages due to tort was run from the date when the Plaintiff became aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and in the case of a corporation, the date when the representative became aware of the damage and the perpetrator was ordinarily known.

However, if the representative of a juristic person commits an illegal act against the juristic person, the interest of the juristic person and the representative is contrary to the interests of the juristic person, so it is difficult to expect the representative to exercise the right of compensation for damages, and it is generally denied the power of representation.