1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the first instance judgment in addition to the part concerning which the appeal is made under the second paragraph, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(1) The court of first instance, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion while filing an appeal, is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the court of first instance, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion. The court of first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s assertion. The court of first instance (including value-added tax 25,798,724 won) of the 166,48,785,247 of the part of the first instance judgment, “283,785,724 won (including value-added tax 25,798,724 won)” of the 166,48,785,971 won (including value-added tax 25,798,724 won).

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12," written in Part 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 11, 12, and 16-1 through No. 18 of the evidence Nos. 1, 5, 11, 12, and 16, the result of the party examination of the defendant representative director of the first instance, and the result of the party examination of the plaintiff representative of the first instance court."

Part 8 of the first instance judgment, "The obligation to contribute to the Cooperative Development Fund has occurred, and the sum of additional donations has reached KRW 1 billion (see Article 18, subparagraph 12 of the contract on the vicarious sale of liability of this case)" was "The obligation to pay the Cooperative Development Fund (in the case of 85%, KRW 50 million, KRW 90 million, KRW 300 million, and KRW 200 million in the case of KRW 95%)" (Article 18, Paragraph 2 of the contract on the vicarious sale of liability of this case).

No. 11 of the first instance judgment, "No. 8, 9, and 10 of Eul" was used as "No. 5, 8 through 10, and 20 of Eul," and "No. 6 of the first instance judgment (see Evidence No. 9)" was used as "No. 9, 20 of the first instance judgment."

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is justified.