The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her duty of care as a good director, on the following grounds: (a) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s fundamental property was not contributed, and that the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s permission for incorporation was due to the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her duty of care as a director; and (b) it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s liability with respect to the failure to implement the small-scale social welfare facility

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.