1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendant's appeal was accepted and the part "in relation to the purchase of foreign content copyright and electronic books, etc." among the "3. Judgment" with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 10 to 12.6 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance) is replaced by the following Paragraph 2.

In addition to the removal of the part of the theory of lawsuit (from 14th to 15th 9th son of the judgment of the court of first instance), the conclusion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. With regard to the purchase of overseas content copyright, electronic books, etc.;

A. The purport of the relevant legal doctrine that Article 398 of the Commercial Act provides that a director shall obtain the approval of the board of directors for a transaction between a director and a company is to prevent a director from seeking his/her own interest by making a direct transaction with the company or by making a transaction between a company and a third party for his/her own interest and causing damages to the company and its shareholders. Thus, even if a transaction between a director and a company is made between a director and a company, if there is no concern for causing disadvantages to the company without conflicting interests between

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da71271 Decided March 11, 2010). B.

Judgment

1) The term “each of the instant contracts” is collectively referred to as “each of the instant contracts” in the context of the F Copyright Contracts between C and D, as well as HH business electronic books, etc.

(2) However, there is no dispute between the parties that the facts of the basis as seen earlier and the statements in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 19, Eul Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8, 17 through 20, 27, 28, 29, and evidence No. 17 of the Commercial Act, and the facts or circumstances acknowledged in the testimony of the first instance trial witness K with the overall purport of the pleadings as follows.