2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) was established on June 10, 2014 as a corporation with the purpose of supporting the welfare and self-reliance of persons with disabilities.

B. On October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was appointed as an internal director of the non-party company, and the Defendant was appointed as the representative director of the non-party company on the same day.

C. On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10 million in the account under the name of Nonparty Company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion in the first instance court that the defendant invested KRW 10 million in the non-party company, the plaintiff alleged that he entered the company as a shareholder of the company of the sub-committee, granted shares equivalent to the above amount, by deceiving the plaintiff, thereby deceiving the plaintiff to compensate for damages caused by illegal acts, and then changed the claim that the plaintiff agreed to return the amount of KRW 10 million invested in the non-party company at the court of the first instance to exchange for the claim for the agreed amount. The claim for the agreed amount changed in exchange is unlawful because there is no consistency between the claim for damages and the claim basis.

B. A change in the claim can be made until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court to the extent that it does not change the foundation of the claim, unless it substantially delays the litigation procedures. The change in the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim merely differs in the method of resolution in disputes concerning the same living facts or the same economic interests, and the change in the ground of the claim does not change in the foundation of the claim, and where most of the previous litigation data can be used for

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da28311, Oct. 9, 2008). In this case, if the Plaintiff invested in the non-party company in the amount of KRW 10 million, the Plaintiff was involved in the company as a shareholder of the company, and the amount equivalent to the above amount.