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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant’s payment of KRW 6 million to the Plaintiff’s fraudulent O on June 9, 2014 can be deducted from the resettlement funds, housing relocation expenses, and director’s expenses.

B. On June 9, 2014, the court of first instance held that the Defendant paid KRW 6 million to the O who resided in the second floor of the Plaintiff’s house as the Plaintiff’s deceptive act. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff housing relocation expenses, etc., which the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff on behalf of the O solely with the statement in subparagraph 7, and there is no other evidence to support this. Rather, in full view of the arguments in each of the items in subparagraph 4-1 through 6 of the evidence No. 4-6, the Defendant recognized the O as the tenant who is the beneficiary of the housing relocation expenses, and paid the above KRW 6 million as the agreed amount, and rejected the Defendant’s claim for the above deduction.

2. In light of the judgment of the court of first instance and the circumstances stated by the court of first instance which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, the decision of the court of first instance is justifiable even if the defendant examines the supplementary arguments in the court of first instance.

Therefore, the court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

3. The decision of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.