1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition, and thus, this case is quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable in full view of the Defendant’s assertion and the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and the lower court’s determination that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable. In so doing, it appears that the Defendant, at that time, allowed E to enter into the instant agreement in the name of the Defendant’s individual name, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and E or the circumstances after the instant agreement.

“Additional” is added. Section 6 of the first instance judgment No. 8 is “no. 6.”

“Next, the Defendant asserted to the effect that “The part that the Plaintiff guaranteed the participation in the management of the Plaintiff violates the Commercial Act and thus it is extremely impossible to implement the instant agreement as it is null and void.” However, since all shares of D at the time of the instant agreement were held by the Defendant and his family members, it cannot be deemed that the guarantee of the Plaintiff’s participation in the management was in violation of the Commercial Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s appointment of D director on February 28, 2013, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion under subparagraph 1 cannot be accepted.

“Additional” is added. On the 8th page of the first instance judgment, there is no evidence to be recognized.

Then, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “the instant agreement was null and void since the Plaintiff and E conspired to collect the D of Defendant’s operation and concluded the instant agreement,” but the evidence submitted to this court alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, “A” shall be added. The following "A” of Section 10 of the first instance judgment No. 14 shall be construed as “A”. The Defendant did not properly operate D, such as “E has not released sales or paid taxes.” The above net profit stated in the evidence No. 2 of the income statement No. 14 shall be the net profit.