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 court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: each J's 11 of the first instance court's 3th trial's 10 and 11th trial's 2th trial's 3th trial's 16th trial's 201's 31th trial's 2010's 16th trial's 16th trial's 3th trial's 2th trial's 3th trial's 3th trial's 20's 1th trial's 3th trial's 3th trial's 23th trial's 3th trial's 23,522,501,624 won's 23th trial's 3th trial's 20th trial's 16th trial's 91.24th trial''''''', 196th trial'''', 3th trial'''the 19th trial's 2th trial''s 2th trial's 3th trial'.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As to the preparation of the audit report in the 36th audit report, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable for damages under Article 750 of the Civil Act, since the performance of D is reflected in the appraisal of assets, which are the investment shares subject to A’s equity law, so the Defendant should have conducted an audit of D’s financial statements in order to properly evaluate A’s assets. ② Unlike the judgment of the first instance, it is difficult to view that the Defendant actually confirmed the purchase order and invoice for the transaction between D and E in the audit process of the investment shares subject to A’s equity law, and even if not, it is negligent in the audit that confirmed only the above documentary evidence.

In this regard, the defendant shall audit ① the shares subject to the equity law.