1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is as follows: (a) the fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the judgment on the main claim” is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case in which the part “B” is cited as “the part.”

A person shall be appointed.

B. 1) The Plaintiff filed the instant claim on the premise that the Defendant was in a position to file an application for support on behalf of the Plaintiff Company, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to file the second application in consideration of the amount of damages, subsidies, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s damage, etc. in accordance with the principle of good faith as stipulated in Article 1(1) of the instant contract. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to file the second application for support.

It is difficult to see that there was any error in the failure to file an application.

(1) Since subsidies for damage caused by the closure of the GIC are externally paid to the defendant at the request of the defendant, if the support following the application is excessive than the actual damage, the legal liability arising therefrom may accrue to the defendant.

② At the time of closure of the GIC, the Defendant recognized that the value of the Plaintiff Company’s inventory assets remaining in the factory would be approximately KRW 500 million.

(No. 5) Accordingly, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff Company to prepare a letter of commitment to the effect that “The Plaintiff shall agree on the reported amount of damage KRW 1.4 billion, and shall waive all rights to the Plaintiff Company’s materials, etc. that remain within the GIC,” and the Plaintiff Company prepared the letter of commitment and issued it to the Defendant.

(Evidence Nos. 3 and 5). The Plaintiff asserted that the instant undertaking was made by the Defendant’s fraud or coercion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(3)