2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) added to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance; (b) added to the Plaintiff’s assertion and its determination as referred to in Section 2(b) below to the judgment of the first instance; and (iii) from Section 7 of the judgment of the first instance to Section 13, the same shall apply to the judgment of the first instance except as provided in the following Paragraph 3. Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited.

2. The addition;

(a) The following: 6th of the 12th judgment of the court of first instance:

It is true that “The legal nature of the issue amount is paid as damages pursuant to Article 8 of the Additional Terms and Conditions, and the legal nature of the issue amount is not the price for acquiring the shares of this case.” However, the Additional Terms and Conditions Article 8 of the Additional Terms and Conditions are stipulated as damages. However, the Additional Terms and Conditions Article 3 and Article 4 of the Additional Terms and Conditions provide that “In order to eliminate uncertainty of recovery of claims due to the fluctuation in stock prices, etc.” (Evidence 3) are clearly stipulated in the 8th creditor financial institutions’ conference of creditor financial institutions, and the above Council provides that “the above Council shall make up for the agreement to eliminate uncertainty of collection of claims due to the fluctuation in stock prices, etc.” (Evidence 3 of the Additional Terms and Conditions). If we look at the text of Articles 3 and 4 of the Additional Terms and Conditions, the intent of the Plaintiff and the creditor bank, who is the party to the Contract, would have to trade the shares of this case without affecting the market price of the shares of this case, and therefore, Article 8 of the Additional Terms and Conditions, which serve as the basis for the Plaintiff’s claim, should be deemed as part of the difference.

B. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) The key issue amount ought to be paid regardless of whether the instant shares were acquired or not, and thus, it cannot be said that the acquisition price of the instant shares is the price of acquisition.

B) According to the corporate tax law, the acquisition price of the asset purchased shall be the sum of the purchase price plus the incidental expenses. Therefore, the acquisition price of the stock of this case shall be determined in accordance with the above provisions. Therefore, the key amount cannot be deemed as the purchase price paid as damages separate from the purchase price of the stock of this case (00 won per share) and it cannot be deemed as incidental expenses. Thus, the key amount cannot be included in the acquisition price of the stock

2) Determination

A) As to the argument on the above A

In light of the background and purpose of the conclusion of the put option agreement as seen above, Article 8 of the Additional Terms and Conditions was put in place in transactions in an amount different from the standard value determined as the transaction price due to statutory restrictions, and it cannot be deemed that the said provision applies even in cases where the transaction itself of the instant stocks is not sexually dead. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this different premise cannot be accepted.

B) As to the argument on the above B

This part of the plaintiff's assertion is premised on the fact that the issue amount is the nature of damages, and it is not the amount of damages but the actual acquisition price of the shares of this case. This part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Parts:

As seen in Paragraph (1) above, insofar as the instant stock transaction between the Plaintiff and the Creditor Company was conducted as a part of the capital reduction procedure by means of stock retirement, and not only falls under the refund of capital, but also, as seen earlier, insofar as the standard value including the key amount is considered as the price for the acquisition of the instant stocks, the nature of the portion added by the mere fact that the base value was calculated by adding an amount calculated according to a certain period and ratio to the principal of the debt-equity swap cannot be deemed as the interest cost. The Plaintiff

4. Conclusion

Thus, the claim of this case in full must be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.