1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's new or new argument that the defendant has renewed or added the judgment as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the second reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant added "the U.S. citizen right" to "the defendant", and the plaintiff in the seventh instance added "the corporation established by the Korean law" to "the plaintiff," and the "23.93% of the defendant's B equity interest" in the 8th instance included "98,000 shares (23.93%, and this included 100,000 shares held by the defendant, but the purchase price of that 100,000 shares was 686,810 US dollars)."

Pursuant to Section 3-4 of the judgment of the first instance court, “to repay the Plaintiff’s considerable damage to the Plaintiff’s C Fund investment funds” was liquidateded by “C Fund investors and B, to repay part of the Plaintiff’s damage suffered by the Plaintiff,” “cronvenant” in the middle part of the statement of performance, “Cronvenant,” “F,” and “6(f), 4-5(f),” respectively.

The “C Fund” was ultimately liquidated.

The judgment of the governing law shall be made in each way. Part 4, paragraph 16, shall be added as follows:

The governing law of this case is the case where the plaintiff, a Korean corporation, seeks the payment of the agreed amount in accordance with the performance memorandum of this case against the defendant, who is a U.S. citizen right holder, and has foreign elements, and

Article 25 of the Private International Act provides for the law of choice of the parties explicitly or implicitly regarding the governing law of the contractual relationship and allows ex post facto agreement. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the governing law applicable to this case as Korean law.