1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendants are E Co., Ltd. owned by the Plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the part of "1. Basic Facts" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the facts on the basis of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants among the instant contract was terminated on December 20, 2016.

On the other hand, the Defendants continued to operate a business with remaining companies, and the standard asset value of the date of termination as above is KRW 73,500,000. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff liquidation amount of KRW 18,375,00 (=73,50,000 x 0.25).

(3) The defendants' obligation to pay the above liquidation money to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's duty to express their intent to transfer E shares to the defendants are in simultaneous performance relationship as seen below 3.4. The defendants' obligation to pay the above liquidation money to the plaintiff as well as the above obligation to pay the above liquidation money to the defendants does not result in delay of performance unless the plaintiff fails to perform the above obligation to transfer shares to the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation to pay the above liquidation money to the plaintiff does not result in delay of performance. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim to pay the above compensation for delay is without merit).

A. The Defendants asserted as to the identity of the claim basis, that the change in the cause of the claim should not be allowed, on the ground that the identity of the claim basis between the cause of the instant complaint and the change in the cause of the claim on January 8, 2018 is not recognized.

However, the claim for the return of investment or the claim for the settlement money based on the contract termination is merely a different method of resolution of the dispute, and thus the basic identity of the claim is recognized. Therefore, the other defendants' above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. The Defendants have no obligation to pay the liquidation money or on December 20, 2016.