1. Facts under the basis of facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, and 13 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings.

The parties to the contract are shareholders and inside directors holding 39,341 shares of Defendant C’s total 91,905 shares, and Plaintiff B is shareholders and inside directors holding 400 shares of the company as children of Plaintiff A.

On the other hand, the non-party E, who is the inside director of the defendant C, is the punishment of the plaintiff A, and the non-party F and the auditor G are the children of the plaintiff E.

B. On March 26, 2014, between the Defendants, Defendant D sold to Defendant C the first stocks, which are Defendant C’s treasury stocks, for KRW 4 billion on March 26, 2014. At the time of the said sales contract, Defendant D granted Defendant D the right to complete the reservation regarding the re-sale of shares (hereinafter “the first sales contract”).

3) Article 4: “If the financial form of “A” (Defendant D) is improved and the re-purchase is intended, “A” refers to re-sale. (c) Defendant D, as of October 7, 2015 between the Defendants, exercised the right to complete re-sale under the first sale and purchase contract on October 7, 2015, purchased the 2 shares, which are part of the 1st shares from Defendant C, for the purchase price of KRW 1.4 billion (hereinafter “the second sale and purchase contract”).

In light of the time and logical order, Defendant D’s counterclaim is first judged in consideration of the time and logical order. However, Defendant D’s counterclaim is examined. However, Defendant D’s counterclaim is examined in light of the time and logical order.

Article 341 of the Commercial Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Act, Article 341 of the Commercial Act, and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Act.