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 judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court added additional judgments as to the grounds for appeal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to cite it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s inventory goods are of no substantial value because they are currently difficult to sell them, and thus, they should be considered in calculating the value of residual assets. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no substantial value of inventory

As to the fact that Gap's sales price has significantly decreased compared to the original sales price, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Eul's evidence No. 20, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that he/she sells inventory goods equivalent to the previous sales price through the Internet shopping mall, etc. even before the closing date of arguments. Thus, even if the sales price has decreased as alleged by the plaintiff, the value of the inventory goods cannot be assessed differently from the above sales price, unless there is any other objective evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.