1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, in addition to the parts that are either dismissed or additionally determined as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts in height:

A. The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeals on February 12, 2015 in 10th 15th 10th 10th 15th 15th 200.

B. We regard “At the end of the final appeal on February 12, 2015, the appeals of D and E were all dismissed” in the 12th sentence of the first instance judgment.

C. On 20 pages 20 of the first instance judgment, the term “transfer agreement for the instant electrical supervision” is deemed to read “transfer agreement for the instant supervision performance”.

3. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is on the following grounds, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 376 million, which is the unpaid amount of KRW 420 million out of the transfer price of KRW 2.1 billion under the instant supervision performance agreement, to the Plaintiff holding 20% of G’s shares.

(4) The Plaintiff’s transfer contract of the electric supervision over the instant case is not effective in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 75,200,000,000,000 in the first instance trial to KRW 376,000; (b) the claim amount was reduced to KRW 64,89,00 in the first instance trial; and (c) the agreement on the transfer of the electric supervision over the instant case was prepared formally for the transfer report of the electric facilities supervision business; and (b) G did not issue a written request for deposit of the transfer proceeds of the instant contract to the Defendant; and (c) the transfer performance agreement cannot be deemed to have lost its validity by changing the transfer performance agreement into the form of the instant electric supervision agreement and the instant share transfer agreement (the instant supervision performance agreement is still valid, and the relevant agreement is only one of the instant share transfer contracts.

(2) 2) E received 360 million won from G on June 13, 2007, and 1) fact is E on May 2007.