Open Decision Ledger · Corporate law & governance
Article 401-2(1) deeming liability and the short limitation period
Supreme Court, Dec. 11, 2025, 2025Da216025 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which provides the short limitation period for ordinary tort liability, apply to a damages claim against a person deemed a director under Article 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act?
Holding
No. The Court held that the liability provided in Article 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act arises by force of the statutory deeming of the person as a director, so the short limitation period for ordinary tort claims does not reach the damages claim. The provision treats as a director a person who uses influence over the company to direct a director to execute business, executes business in a director's name, or uses a title showing authority to execute the company's business, and that person bears the same duty of care and loyalty as a director.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
상법 제401조의2 제1항에서 정한 손해배상책임은 같은 항 각 호의 자를 이사로 본다는 법률의 규정에 따라 생기는 것이므로 그 손해배상채권에는 일반 불법행위책임의 단기소멸시효를 규정한 민법 제766조 제1항이 적용되지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
The liability for damages as provided in Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act arises by virtue of the provision of law deeming each person falling under any subparagraph of the same paragraph to be a director; therefore, Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, which provides the short-term extinctive prescription for general tort liability, does not apply to such a claim for damages.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이는 주식회사의 이사가 아니면서 사실상 업무집행을 지시하거나 이사처럼 업무를 집행하는 자는 회사의 업무에 관하여 법령준수의무를 비롯하여 이사와 동일한 선관주의의무 및 충실의무를 부담하고, 이를 게을리하여 손해가 발생할 경우 회사에 대하여 배상책임을 진다는 것을 명확히 하여 그 책임을 강화한 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
This clarified and strengthened the liability of a person who, without being a director of a stock company, in fact directs the management of affairs or performs the affairs as if he or she were a director, in that such a person bears, in respect of the affairs of the company, the duty to comply with statutes and regulations as well as the same duty of care as a good manager and duty of loyalty as a director, and shall bear liability to compensate the company if damage arises due to the neglect of such duties.
Factors
- 회사에 대한 자신의 영향력을 이용하여 이사에게 업무집행을 지시한 자(제1호)
- 이사의 이름으로 직접 업무를 집행한 자(제2호)
- 명예회장·회장·사장·부사장·전무·상무·이사 기타 회사의 업무를 집행할 권한이 있는 것으로 인정될 만한 명칭을 사용하여 회사의 업무를 집행한 자(제3호)
- 이사와 동일한 선관주의의무 및 충실의무를 부담하고
- 일반 불법행위책임의 단기소멸시효를 규정한 민법 제766조 제1항이 적용되지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
• A person who directed the director to perform the affairs by taking advantage of his or her influence over the company (subparagraph 1)
• A person who directly performed the affairs in the name of a director (subparagraph 2)
• A person who performed the affairs of the company by using a title such as honorary chairman, chairman, president, vice president, senior managing director, managing director, director, or any other title that may be recognized as conferring authority to perform the affairs of the company (subparagraph 3)
• bears the same duty of care as a good manager and duty of loyalty as a director, and
• Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, which provides the short-term extinctive prescription for general tort liability, does not apply
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 10. 26. 선고 2020다236848 판결(공2023하, 2059)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2020Da236848 decided October 26, 2023 (Gong 2023 Ha, 2059)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2003. 1. 10. 선고 2001다37071 판결(공2003상, 601) / [2] 대법원 2023. 10. 26. 선고 2020다236848 판결(공2023하, 2059)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Which limitation period applies to a damages claim under Article 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and from what date does it run?
A later decision applying a general limitation period to a claim under Article 401-2(1), or fixing the date from which it runs, would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act or Article 766(1) of the Civil Act would have the same effect.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 9 July 2025 (2024Na2034079), held that the defendants used the titles 'general manager, vice president, senior director' to execute the plaintiff company's business, knew or could have known that their conduct would harm the plaintiff, and colluded in taking part in the first and second remittances. They were therefore either persons deemed directors under Article 401-2(1) of the Commercial Act or joint tortfeasors, and the court below granted part of the plaintiff's second alternative claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the appellate reasons contained some parts that were not entirely apt, but the conclusion was proper. It found no misapprehension of the law on persons deemed directors, the elements of liability for non-performance of obligations under the Civil Act, the authenticity of documents, causation of the loss, the burden of proof, the limitation of liability or the completion of the limitation period, and no violation of the rules of evidence, so all the defendants' appeals were dismissed with the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A person who neither used influence over the company to direct a director to execute business nor executed business in a director's name.
- A person who used no title showing authority to execute the company's business, such as honorary chairman, chairman, president, vice president, executive director, managing director or director.
- A damages claim that does not arise from the deeming in Article 401-2(1), such as a claim resting only on joint tortfeasance.
Record verification notes
The Court answered only whether Article 766(1) of the Civil Act applies; it did not decide which limitation period governs this claim or when that period begins to run. Before relying on this decision elsewhere, separate the ground of the claim below, deemed director or joint tortfeasor, since the limitation holding speaks to the claim arising from the statutory deeming. Also read the full appellate reasoning for the titles used, the first and second remittances and the loss, because the Supreme Court noted parts of that reasoning that were not entirely apt.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 상법 제401조의2 제1항의 규정 취지 [2] 상법 제401조의2 제1항에서 정한 업무집행지시자 등의 손해배상책임에 민법 제766조 제1항의 단기소멸시효가 적용되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Purpose of Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act [2] Whether the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act applies to the liability for damages of persons directing the management of affairs and others as provided in Article 401-2 (1) of the Commercial Act (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 상법 제401조의2 제1항은 회사에 대한 자신의 영향력을 이용하여 이사에게 업무집행을 지시한 자(제1호), 이사의 이름으로 직접 업무를 집행한 자(제2호) 또는 이사가 아니면서 명예회장·회장·사장·부사장·전무·상무·이사 기타 회사의 업무를 집행할 권한이 있는 것으로 인정될 만한 명칭을 사용하여 회사의 업무를 집행한 자(제3호)가 그 지시하거나 집행한 업무에 관하여 제399조, 제401조, 제403조 및 제406조의2를 적용하는 경우에는 그 자를 "이사"로 본다고 규정하고 있다. 이는 주식회사의 이사가 아니면서 사실상 업무집행을 지시하거나 이사처럼 업무를 집행하는 자는 회사의 업무에 관하여 법령준수의무를 비롯하여 이사와 동일한 선관주의의무 및 충실의무를 부담하고, 이를 게을리하여 손해가 발생할 경우 회사에 대하여 배상책임을 진다는 것을 명확히 하여 그 책임을 강화한 것이다. [2] 상법 제401조의2 제1항에서 정한 손해배상책임은 같은 항 각 호의 자를 이사로 본다는 법률의 규정에 따라 생기는 것이므로 그 손해배상채권에는 일반 불법행위책임의 단기소멸시효를 규정한 민법 제766조 제1항이 적용되지 않는다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
[1] 상법 제401조의2 제1항 / [2] 상법 제401조의2 제1항, 민법 제766조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger