The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim regarding the validity of the second share sales contract of this case, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant did not actively participate in the act of breach of trust of M, even though M, at the time of entering into the second share sales contract with M, was aware of the fact that M, at the time of entering into the second share sales contract with M, was already aware of the fact that M, Co., Ltd. had already received the payment of the second share sales contract of this case, and further, it cannot be deemed that the second share sales contract of this case was in violation of social order

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or misapprehending the legal principles on Article 103 of the Civil Act

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined C and I as the co-seller of the instant sales contract as indicated in the lower judgment, and further, determined on the merits on the premise that the instant lawsuit is not an essential co-litigation, is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the confirmation of parties to a contract

3. As to the assertion regarding the rescission of the instant sales contract

A. The reasoning of the judgment below is examined.