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.

The court's explanation of this case as to this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following cases. Thus, it shall accept this by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 6th and 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “The 32,308,000 won of the construction cost to be received from the Korea Resources Corporation,” and “the drilling work, which is the government subsidy project, has been awarded by the Korea Resources Corporation, shall be as follows:

The 7th to 20th of the decision of the first instance is as follows.

The plaintiff's representative director from August 2, 2007 to November 1, 2013. The defendants were directors of the plaintiff from August 2, 2007 to February 20, 2014. The defendants established the company of this case for the purpose of drilling business, etc. on August 20, 2013. The defendant Eul was a representative director, and the defendant C was a director of the company.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the results of the commission of document delivery to the Korea Resources Corporation by the court of first instance and the court of first instance with respect to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 21 through 27, it is recognized that the company of this case orders drilling construction, which is a government subsidy project conducted by the Korea Resources Corporation in total of 331,192,390 won (excluding value-added tax) from domestic mining enterprises around 2014 as listed in the following table, and that the plaintiff received construction cost after completion, and that the plaintiff implemented Boringing construction works from L, M, and N among the mines listed in the table below before 2014.

L 44,190,00 L 44,771,00 M 22,771,00O 79,782,390 P 33,222,000 46,053,00 Q 21,873,000 N 35,740,000 S 29,000 S 29,000 331,561,392,390 in light of the above legal principles, the company of this case merely ordered drilling construction before and after the period of service as the plaintiff's director, and in some of the previous mines, the plaintiff was the previous mine.