The judgment below

Among them, the part against the Plaintiff against Defendant B, I, J, and K is reversed, and this part of the case is in question.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the disposal document, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B prepared each of the instant statements to the effect that, on October 31, 2008, Defendant B would compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to the Plaintiff on the ground that “if the Plaintiff incurred losses equivalent to KRW 8,046,634,770 due to the C’s voluntary execution of the disposal document, as it was not preserved until November 15, 2008,” it is reasonable to deem that each of the instant statements was prepared to the effect that, in light of the circumstances of the holding, Defendant B is liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff on the premise that Defendant B was intentionally or by gross negligence with respect to the voluntary execution of the disposal fee, and that, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the disposal document, the lower court’s judgment was justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the construction of the disposal document.