1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding or closing part of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following Paragraph 2, and the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial of the court of first instance as set forth in the following Paragraph 3. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

(hereinafter referred to as the "marb" means the following: (a) 2. Additional or height from the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) below the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following shall be added to the fifth below.

In the course of the Busan Customs office's investigation on suspicion of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, the Hong Kong corporation stated to the effect that "The Hong Kong corporation was established to realize the plaintiff's business interest, and specific business affairs of the Hong Kong corporation are the Chinese trading office's market investigation, survey on current situation, price investigation, purchase, procurement, price negotiation, and export and import business in order to realize the plaintiff's interest." The grounds of the first judgment of the court of first instance are as follows:

The Plaintiff prepared the personnel evaluation report as “the Plaintiff’s Glass business/technical business team,” and “agent,” which is an employee of the Chinese heart branch.” Following the first instance judgment’s “(No. 38 and 39 evidence)”, the Plaintiff added “(No. 18 and 45 evidence I and F’s respective statements at Busan Customs Office)” to “(No. 18 and 45 evidence I, and F’s respective statements at Busan Customs Office).”

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “The agreement (Evidence B No. 11) was written in the name of the Plaintiff as a party, and the Plaintiff claimed the cost of loss for the Chinese manufacture (Evidence B No. 12).”

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: "The defendant is not specifically defined as "Embezzlement" of I, and the agreed amount is KRW 830,000,000.