beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's decision on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of "1. Basic Facts" No. 16 through No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as that of "No. 6 of the judgment of the court of second instance." Thus, they are cited by the main text of
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to Article 9(3) of the Plaintiff’s argument, if the Council fails to confirm the management normalization plan by the end of the grace period for the exercise of claims, the proceedings for joint administration by creditor financial institutions against the company in question are interrupted from the following day. While the grace period for the exercise of claims against G was terminated on April 23, 2010 and the proceedings for joint administration by creditor financial institutions were suspended, the Korea Development Bank proceeded with the workout program
This is not only a violation of the above legal provisions, but also an abuse of trade position under Article 23 (1) 4 of the Fair Trade Act, which constitutes an abuse of trade position under Article 36 (Attached Table 1-2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Fair Trade Act and is illegal.
As above, Defendant B, and C, who were dispatched from the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation to G to work as the vice head of the claims management group at the time, committed the act of forging the minutes of the board of directors of G on December 17, 2009, and Defendant C and C, who served as the vice head of the claims management group upon being dispatched from the Korea Development Bank to G, in collusion with Defendant D and E, and the minutes of the board of directors on January 21, 2010 of G, the minutes of the board of directors on January 27, 2010, the minutes of the board of directors on March 8, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “each minutes of this case”) were forged (i.e., collectively referred to as “each minutes of this case”).
The defendants' above Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act.