1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

In this case, where the plaintiff quoted in the judgment of the court of first instance repeats the same assertion as the argument in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons for the statement by this court are as follows: ① the court of first instance’s ruling “1. 27 Jan. 27, 2016” in the 5th sentence “20 Jan. 3, 2016”; ② the part of “A. 5” in the 7th sentence is as follows, and the part other than the entry is the same as the entry in the column for reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance; thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

B. 1) Article 405(1) of the Commercial Act provides that a shareholder who has instituted a shareholder representative lawsuit pursuant to Article 403(3) and (4) of the Commercial Act may file a claim against the company for the payment of litigation costs and other costs incurred by the lawsuit. 2) Therefore, if the Plaintiff won the lawsuit for the shareholder representative, and the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of Article 405(1) of the Commercial Act, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim in the relevant shareholder representative lawsuit is rendered, as seen earlier. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff won the lawsuit for the shareholder representative, which is the requirement for reimbursement of litigation costs under Article 405(1) of the Commercial Act, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff won the lawsuit

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

① It seems that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the delegation contract of this case ought to be equally construed as “the case of winning” and “the case of winning” as the requirement for reimbursement of litigation costs under Article 405(1) of the Commercial Act.

However, it cannot be said that the content of the delegation contract of this case, which only takes effect to the parties by agreement between the parties, is a standard for interpreting Article 405 (1) of the Commercial Act.

(2) G is liable for damage in related shareholders' derivative lawsuits and related criminal cases.