1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. The grounds for judgment of this court shall be the same as the part of the judgment of the first instance; and

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). Provided, That it is true as follows:

A. The “instant company” of the judgment of the first instance court is regarded as the “Plaintiff”.

B. On the 2nd half to 5th sixth of the judgment of the first instance court, the “debtor panty panty LLC Co., Ltd. (mutually named STX panty LLC, hereinafter “instant company”)” is deemed as the “Plaintiff (mutually named STX panty LLC Co., Ltd. prior to the change)”.

C. Around August 30, 2007, “round September 30, 2007,” which is the 6th day of the second judgment of the first instance court, shall be read as “ around September 2007.”

From the 11th to the 18th day of the decision of the court of first instance on the 3rd day of the decision of the court of first instance is as follows:

[Supplementary Use]

B. The defendant's assertion and its determination (i.e., the defendant entered the number of employee shares that the defendant wishes in the plaintiff's computer network on September 4, 2007, and accordingly stated the amount of money to be loaned from the plaintiff, and although this is written in computer, it cannot be viewed as the consent for the plaintiff's loan application.

This is because, at the time of computer entry, the fixed public offering of shares was determined, and the subscription guidance was stated as the "pre-public notice schedule", and the entry based on KRW 1,400 per share was based on the "pre-public notice schedule," and the final public notice was merely the "pre-public notice average price standard on September 10, 2007" and it was impossible to know the amount, and the subsequent final public offering was substantially different in terms of KRW 1,720.

In addition, there is no way to determine the method of receiving loans, and the agreement between the plaintiff and the employee stock ownership association on how much the plaintiff would make loans to the members of the employee stock ownership association was made before the second council of the employee stock ownership association passed a resolution.

In addition, the defendant, while the employee stock ownership association, concluded an agreement with the plaintiff, managed the defendant's loans, the employee stock ownership association directly, secret and secret.