1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants added in the trial.

1. The part of the claim against the defendant B and C

A. The reasoning for the court’s determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Da4228, Apr. 1, 201).

B. 1) Determination on the claim for damages that was selected in the trial of the court below as to the Plaintiff’s grounds for the amendment to the Plaintiff’s assertion 2) The evidence submitted in the first instance trial and the evidence submitted in the first instance trial are insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant B and C conspired with Defendant D and E to engage in embezzlement on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence sufficient to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. The part of the claim against Defendant D and E

A. The reasoning for this Court’s determination on the claim for damages sought in the first instance trial is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the first instance court is the same as that for the conclusion in addition to the evidence submitted in the first instance trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court’s conclusion by examining the evidence additionally submitted in the first instance trial); and (b)

B. In full view of the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, it is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant D, E, and C conspired with Defendant B and C to engage in embezzlement as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence sufficient to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with this conclusion.