1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

In this case, where the plaintiff cited the judgment of the court of first instance basically accepts the same assertion as the argument alleged in the judgment of the court of first instance, this court's reasoning is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the entry as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420

The first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance to 14th instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,915,217,544 equivalent to the price of the instant goods in which the Plaintiff was unable to enforce due to the application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures due to the above tort. However, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,15,691,544 as principal and interest in the rehabilitation case against the Plaintiff, and was established a collateral security amount of KRW 1.5 billion with the maximum debt amount of KRW 3,228,717,787,54 won (=5,215,545,15,15,691,541,540,70,00).

3. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s claim against E was infringed by the Defendants’ act. Defendant Company’s transferee, representative director of Defendant Company, Defendant C, and D are merely those appointed as an intra-company director upon the Defendant Company’s recommendation. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is divided into ① the claim for infringement of claim by a third party, ② the claim for liability against a third party by a director or an operating officer under Articles 401 and 401-2 of the Commercial Act.

In general, the infringement of claims by a third party can constitute a tort due to the infringement of claims by a third party, but the infringement of claims by a third party is not always a tort.