1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim for the principal lawsuit changed by this court, is as follows.

1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, which the defendant asserted in the trial while filing an appeal, are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim on the merits and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim is deemed legitimate, considering the evidence additionally submitted in the trial and the result of pleading

Therefore, this court's reasoning, including the allegations and evidence of the parties added in the trial, shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the further determination by supplementing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following

2. Additional determination

A. In order to determine whether the Plaintiff intentionally or by gross negligence inflicted damage on the Defendant (the Defendant) as to whether the contract for granting the stock option of this case constitutes “A (the Plaintiff’s intentional or gross negligence)” as provided for in the grounds for revocation, there should be proof as to the existence of the Plaintiff’s intentional or gross negligence in the course of the implementation of the instant E clinical trial, and the fact that the damage was inflicted on the Defendant. In this case, whether the act of occupational intentional or gross negligence was committed must be determined by considering not only the specific contents of the pertinent work, but also the circumstances leading up to the performance of the work, the purport, and the report or approval on the Defendant’s management, and whether the damage was caused by the Defendant’s intentional or gross negligence should also be considered under the above recognition.

In full view of the allegations by the parties and evidence adopted by the first instance court, the Plaintiff was subject to approval of the clinical trial plan by deceiving the Minister of Food and Drug Safety in relation to the application for approval of the clinical trial plan.

Although the result of animal testing using E is not good, it shall be against the defendant.