2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is next to the judgment of the first instance.

The decision of the court of first instance is the same as that of the decision of the court of first instance, except for the revision as stated in the following paragraph and addition of the decision in the trial as stated in paragraph (2).

B. 1) The amended portion of the first instance court’s 4th sentence “10 evidence” is “10,28 evidence”; the “49 evidence” of the 5th sentence is “47 through 49 evidence”; the “25 billion won” of the 4th sentence is “22 billion won”; and the “25 billion won” of the 4th sentence is “22 billion won” at the end of the 7th sentence of the first instance court’s judgment; and the “interest or delay damages” of the second sentence is considered as “the agreed person or agreed person interest,” respectively.

3) The plaintiff in the first instance judgment No. 9 of the first instance court's 16 "as of March 2012," "as of May 8, 2012," "as of May 8, 2012," "as of May 18, 201," "as of May 8, 2012," "as of May 8, 201," "as of May 19, 201," "as of May 10, 201," "as of May 16, 201," "as of May 19, 201," "as of May 17, 201," "as of May 16, 201," "as of May 19, 201," "as of May 16, 201," "as of May 10, 201."

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As examined in the above cited part, the defendants assume the duty of employment contract to perform their duties with the duty of due care as an employee of the plaintiff, and they do not go through the resolution of the board of directors necessary for changing the lending conditions of gold maris with a substantial neglect of such duty of care, and the written opinion of review stating false details without properly reviewing the possibility of recovery.