1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Plaintiff’s shares stated in the separate shares list among the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 20, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 10-1.

On January 28, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted, on November 30, 2012, an agreement on the transfer of shares between Defendant B and E (the former trade name: F Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “instant company”) with respect to the transfer of all 32,000 shares (hereinafter “instant shares”) to Defendant B of KRW 160,00,000 per share ( KRW 5,000 per share).

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract” and the said contract is referred to as the “instant contract”). B.

After the contract of this case, the register of shareholders of the company of this case became a change of shareholders as shareholders holding shares of 22,400 shares, defendant C's 6,400 shares, and defendant D's 3,200 shares. Since the total shares of the company of this case increase to 60,00 shares, as shown in the separate list of shares, as shown in the separate list of shares, the company of this case became a change of shareholders holding shares of 42,00 shares, defendant C's 12,00 shares, and defendant D's 6,00 shares as stated in the separate list of shares.

C. Defendant B registered the instant company’s representative director and inside director, Defendant C’s outside director, and Defendant D’s auditor of the instant company. However, Defendant B’s application for temporary suspension of performance of duties filed by the Plaintiff with Seoul Western District Court (2013Kahap673) was cited on July 26, 2013, and the instant judgment became final and conclusive, and the company’s representative director and inside director were suspended from performing their duties until August 5, 2013.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. In order to facilitate the loan to the Credit Guarantee Fund, the contract of this case 1 constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy since the Plaintiff transferred the shares of this case to Defendant B in order to facilitate the loan to the company of this case.