1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim for share price (the part that was reversed by the judgment on the refund) among the conjunctive claims in the principal lawsuit.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. After remanding the principal claim, the first instance court rejected both the Plaintiffs’ claim for confirmation of ownership of the primary claimant, the claim equivalent to the purchase price of the stocks of the conjunctive claimant, and the claim for share purchase price. The Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeal as to the claim equivalent to the share price (where the Defendants are unable to refund their shares on the premise that the cancellation of the contract is lawful, the amount equivalent to each share value) among the primary claim and the conjunctive claim, and reversed the portion of the claim for share price (the remainder after settlement of deduction among the transfer price premised on the validity of the contract for share transfer and takeover) among the conjunctive claims, and remanded it to this Court. Accordingly, the scope of the first instance judgment after remanding the principal claim is limited to

2. Basic facts

A. 1) O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) (hereinafter “O”)

The said Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Rehabilitation Court”) in the case of Gwangju District Court 2010 Gohap14

(2) On May 28, 2010, the rehabilitation plan was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures, and on December 15, 2010, the O’s shares were owned by both Plaintiff A, their family members and interested parties. However, according to the rehabilitation plan, some of the creditors’ claims were converted into equity investment.

Accordingly, the shares of theO are 362,675 shares (31.19%), and the plaintiffs E are children, plaintiffs F, G, and H, the plaintiff's act of fraud of the plaintiff Eul, and the plaintiff Eul, the representative of the plaintiff D is the wife of the plaintiff Eul.

And P(Plaintiff A's ASEAN) respectively possess the remainder of 799,997 note (68.81%).

B. P and the transferee at the time of the transfer of shares, who represented the Plaintiffs by the 1st written contract, special agreement, and confirmation note, were not specified. On October 7, 201, the stock acquisition plan, which was approved by the rehabilitation court, was included in the stock acquisition plan, Q. Co., Ltd. by the transferee of the stocks of the Plaintiffs.