2014 Gohap106510 Loans

A Stock Company

Attorney B, C

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm E

December 11, 2014

January 22, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 800,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from August 18, 2010 to July 10, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 800,000,000 as well as the year from August 18, 2010 to July 10, 2014.

6%, 20% interest per annum from July 11, 2014 to the date of full payment shall be paid.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 2010, E, a director and major shareholder of the Plaintiff Company, borrowed KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff Company under the name of the Defendant as business capital and used for casino gambling money, and requested the Defendant to lend KRW 800 million to the Defendant on the side of the Plaintiff Company. On the same day, the Defendant received KRW 80 million (Chapter 8 of cashier’s checks) from the Plaintiff Company and received a loan certificate and receipt (No. 2) that borrowed KRW 800 million with the Plaintiff Company as business capital.

【Glateral Card】

○ Obligor: Defendant

○○ Creditor: The Plaintiff Company’s obligor is to borrow KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff Company on the following terms:

1. Amount borrowed: 80 million won;

2. Period for borrowing: To borrow from August 18, 2010 to August 31, 2014.

3. The repayment date of principal: It shall be repaid in full by August 31, 2011;

4. The agreed interest rate: The annual interest rate shall be 6%, and the monthly interest payment date shall be the last day of each month.

5. Grounds for borrowing: For investment (company).

B. The Defendant used the said KRW 800 million borrowed from the Plaintiff Company as casino gambling money, along with F on the date of borrowing the loan.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 16, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on August 16, 2010, after the resolution of the board of directors of the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 800 million with a loan; (b) on August 18, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 800 million with a business loan to the Defendant; or (c) on the ground that he/she was unaware of the business loan by deceiving the Defendant and borrowed KRW 800 million with a business loan, thereby seeking compensation for damages caused by a tort by deception.

A. Determination as to loan claims

Since the defendant prepared a loan certificate of KRW 800 million, it is deemed that the defendant borrowed KRW 800 million from the plaintiff company. However, the defendant asserted that the loan of the plaintiff was null and void since the defendant did not go through the resolution of the board of directors even though it was an act subject to the resolution of the board of directors pursuant to Article 393 (1) of the Commercial Act, and the defendant knew of it at the

Article 393(1) of the Commercial Act states that the board of directors of a stock company has the authority to make a decision on the execution of duties by prescribing that the disposal and transfer of important assets of a stock company and the borrowing of large-scale assets shall be subject to a resolution of the board of directors as to the disposal of important assets of a stock company and the borrowing of large-scale assets, and that the board of directors shall pass a resolution of the board of directors as to important business affairs not included in daily business affairs, which are not ordinarily and specifically delegated to the representative director. Here, whether the disposal of important assets or the borrowing of large-scale assets is an important business affairs not included in daily business affairs, such as the value of the relevant assets, the ratio of the relevant assets to the total assets, the size of the company, the status of the company's business or assets, the management status, the purpose of the company's ordinary business affairs, the relationship with the company's previous business affairs, etc. shall be determined depending on whether it is reasonable to entrust the representative director's decision (see

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff Company is a company established for the purpose of operating a private teaching institute, publishing various books, printing, and selling business, and is actually operating a private teaching institute, it is difficult to view that the act of lending business funds to the Defendant Company as a daily business of the Plaintiff Company, and that the act of lending the Plaintiff Company’s business funds is 700 million won at the time of August 2010, the date of lending the Plaintiff Company’s capital, which is a large amount of KRW 800 million exceeding the Plaintiff Company’s capital, etc., the act of lending KRW 80 million to the Defendant constitutes an act of lending KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff Company, which is

However, according to the records in the minutes of the board of directors evidence No. 4, it can be recognized that the minutes of the board of directors were prepared in a manner that the board of directors approved the lending of KRW 800 million to the defendant of the plaintiff company, held on August 16, 2010, which was two days before the date of the lending of this case, by three directors of the plaintiff company. However, according to the statements in subparagraph 4-9 and 10-10 of the evidence No. 4-2, E, who is a major shareholder and director of the plaintiff company and is a director of the above board of directors, signed and sealed as the attending director in collusion with the defendant and is investigated as a suspicion that the plaintiff acquired KRW 800 million by deceiving the plaintiff company.

18. The defendant and the defendant conspired to borrow KRW 800 million from the company for business purposes, and the defendant borrowed KRW 800 million from the company to the defendant on the same day after contact with the plaintiff company and directed the defendant to lend KRW 800 million to the defendant, and on August 16, 2010, the minutes of the board of directors meeting held on August 16, 2010 stated several times to the effect that "the plaintiff company prepared the date of preparation retrospectively without the meeting of the board of directors actually held." In fact, in light of these circumstances, the plaintiff company did not go through the board of directors resolution in the process of lending KRW 80 million to the defendant on August 18, 2010, and the defendant knew or could have known such circumstances. Thus, the plaintiff company's lending KRW 800 million to the defendant is null and void because it did not go through the board of directors resolution and the plaintiff company cannot request the plaintiff company to return unjust enrichment, but it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff company paid the above amount of KRW 8000 million to the defendant.

B. Determination of a claim for damages caused by a tort

As seen earlier, E and the Defendant conspired to borrow KRW 800 million from the Defendant’s name as business fund for the purpose of raising the casino gambling fund, but knew that the purpose of the instant loan was to raise the Defendant’s business fund and received KRW 800 million from the Plaintiff trust. If the Plaintiff knew that KRW 800 million will be used for the gambling fund, this would not be a joint tort against the Defendant and E. In addition, in order to raise the gambling fund, E and the Defendant were to have borrowed KRW 800 million from the Plaintiff on the date of borrowing KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff company for business fund, and in view of the fact that E and the Defendant did not pay KRW 800 million from August 18, 2010, the date of the above loan loan to the Plaintiff, the date of the closing of argument, and in view of the fact that the Plaintiff had no intent or ability to pay KRW 800 million,0000,000,000,000 from August 18, 201.

Therefore, E and the defendant are jointly and severally liable to compensate for damages of KRW 800 million due to illegal acts by deception [the defendant is a company under actual control of the plaintiff company, which is a major shareholder, and in this case, E is aware that the purpose of use of KRW 800 million is gambling fund, and therefore, the plaintiff company is not deceiving the defendant, and the plaintiff company is separate from the defendant, and in fact, the plaintiff company is a corporation with the individual, and in the investigation process, Eul stated that it is not sufficient to say that it actually used the loan amount of KRW 800 million to the plaintiff company (Article 9,10 of the evidence No. 4-9,00). Further, the defendant only lent the loan to the plaintiff company under the name of the borrower, and actually used the loan of this case as gambling fund from the plaintiff company, so it is argued to the effect that the defendant did not mislead the plaintiff company with the plaintiff company, and as seen above, the defendant prepared the loan certificate and the receipt in the name of the plaintiff company and received KRW 800 million directly, and the defendant No. 167 and No. 2808.

18. Casino, 80 million won cashier's checks directly received from the Plaintiff Company, purchased chips equivalent to KRW 800,000,000 from the Plaintiff Company, and thereafter, E purchased them thereafter, and thereafter, E was able to do gambling in the way of "E" and use KRW 800,000,000. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is not a mere nominal lender but a person who deceivings the Plaintiff Company jointly with E.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant shall deliver a copy of the complaint of this case from August 18, 2010, which was the date of tort, to the plaintiff 800 million won for damages caused by deception, and the defendant shall affix a seal to the plaintiff on July 7, 2014.

10. Until the end, 5% per annum under the Civil Act (for commercial interest rate of 6% per annum to be claimed by the Plaintiff does not apply to the liability for damages arising from tort), and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no reason.

Judges Kim Jong-yang

Judges Domincs

Judge Lee Ho-hoon