The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

(1) The lower court dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion, i.e., the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages caused by the Defendants’ joint tort, on or around June 24, 2008, on the grounds that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) pursuant to Article 5 of the instant contract for the appointment of executives, and (2) the instant contract for the appointment of executives was terminated at that time by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination and the F’s declaration of termination on or around July 24, 2008, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had a claim for share transfer under the premise that the said contract remains in force against F, namely, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion, that is, the damages claim against the Defendant Co., Ltd. (a claim for damages due to nonperformance of a stock transfer obligation, and a claim for damages

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the binding force of confession, interpretation of declaration of intent or disposal documents, legal effect of termination of a contract, and inter-learning beams, etc., or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.