1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Gap's evidence submitted in the court of first instance, which is insufficient to reverse the facts acknowledged by the court of first instance; Gap's evidence Nos. 15-1, 2, and 16-1; and witness E of the court of first instance which are insufficient to reverse the facts acknowledged by the court of first instance; the court's rejection of witness of the court of first instance's testimony is based on "whether the plaintiff contributed to all of the company's capital as seen in the facts charged in the preceding facts" in No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "as seen in the preceding facts," and the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments after

【Additional Statement: (8) Furthermore, considering the overall purport of arguments in the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number), the Plaintiff appropriated the capital of KRW 100 million for expenses incurred in relation to processing or processing employees by temporarily borrowing and paying the capital of KRW 100 million at the time of the establishment of the instant company, on February 13, 2001, after the incorporation of the instant company, “the representative director paid KRW 83,00,000” and “the representative director paid KRW 17,00,000,000.” After withdrawing the above KRW 100,000,000,000, the Plaintiff accounted for the capital of the instant company in the form of the most loans to employees, the advance payment for the processed or processing transactions, and as such, at the time of the first capital increase on April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff used the capital increase of KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s capital increase account (the title of the instant company did not appear to the capital increase.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit.