1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part IV of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the defendant" of the fourth 6th son of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be construed as "the defendant's law firm (LLC) to which the defendant belongs (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant without distinguishing between the above law firm and the defendant)".

Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court (the bottom of the seventh part) shall be cut to the following:

f. The Plaintiff asserts that, by withdrawing the suit against F on September 5, 2012 without obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent or without notifying the Plaintiff in advance, the Plaintiff suffered property damage by failing to obtain a favorable judgment against F, who was rendered a favorable judgment against F, a insolvent public official.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 28, the defendant can acknowledge the fact that the defendant accepted the lawsuit of this case from the plaintiff and received the authority to withdraw the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendant may withdraw the lawsuit of this case as an attorney of the civil lawsuit of this case without the plaintiff's consent. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the facts and evidence mentioned above, can be seen as follows: the main purpose of the plaintiff's civil lawsuit of this case is to file a lawsuit of this case against G rather than a claim for damages against F or Mungman, and the main purpose of the lawsuit of this case seems to have been to have been claimed for a contract deposit against G. However, due to the failure to deliver the complaint of this case to F and the correction of address, etc., the progress of the lawsuit of this case was delayed, and the defendant has already completed the service of G and Mung Man.