1. Of the main claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim) D in the judgment of the first instance court, the lower additional payment order is ordered.

1. The first instance court, within the scope of this court’s trial, dismissed all the principal lawsuit against the Defendant Company A, accepted Plaintiff A’s principal claim against the Defendant Company, partly accepted Plaintiff B’s principal claim against Defendant D, and dismissed all the Defendants’ respective counterclaims against Plaintiff B.

As to this, the Defendants filed each counterclaim against the Plaintiff B, the Defendant Company filed an appeal against the Plaintiff’s principal claim, and Defendant D filed an incidental appeal against the part partially cited in the Plaintiff’s principal claim, and Plaintiff B filed an incidental appeal only against the principal claim against the Defendant partially dismissed.

Therefore, the subject of the judgment in this Court is the part of the Plaintiff Company’s principal claim against the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff Company’s principal claim against Defendant D, and the Defendants’ respective counterclaim claims against Plaintiff B.

2. In addition to adding "the result of fact-finding about the tax accounting corporation PCheongju Branch in the first instance court's fact-finding fact-finding" to "the result of fact-finding about the tax accounting corporation's PCheongju Branch", the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance

(The reasoning of this court is as follows, except for adding the following judgments: (a) the reasoning of the first instance judgment as to the claim against the Defendant Company A by the Plaintiff in this part of the judgment on the claim against the Defendant Company A is as stated in paragraph (2) of the same Article.

(2) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A company shall file a report on the liquidation of the Defendant company, including a resolution of resolution of resolution of resolution of resolution of settlement of accounts at the temporary shareholders’ meeting of this case, with Defendant D and Plaintiff B, at the request of Plaintiff B, a real shareholder of the shares (50% out of the shares issued by the Defendant company) in the name of Plaintiff A. However, the statement of evidence No. 6 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant company

4. Determination as to Plaintiff B’s claim against Defendant D.