1.The judgment of the first instance, including the primary claims added at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: (a) the part of the second and sixth of the judgment of the court of first instance stating that “Defendant” is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as to the second and fourth instances of the judgment of the court of first instance, the second and fourth instances of the judgment of the court of first instance are stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following: (b) the part stating that “Defendant” is “Woo Accounting Firm (as to the above Chungcheong Accounting Firm, the merger of the said Chungcheong Accounting Firm, and taking over the lawsuit of the said Chungcheong Accounting Firm at the trial after completing the registration of the merger; and (c) the above Chungcheong Accounting Firm, for convenience below, is also named as Defendant.”

2. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in the content of the instant audit report prepared by the Defendant prior to entering into the instant acquisition agreement and the instant merger agreement with C, which was acquired by transfer of management rights of C in the former A and made bypass-listed through a merger with C.

However, after the acquisition of the instant transfer agreement and the merger, the Plaintiff became aware that C’s overseas investment corporation was dissolved on May 2008 and did not actually exist at the time of the Defendant’s accounting audit, and that C’s cash equivalent to USD 4 million, which was evaluated as owned by E, did not actually exist. If the Defendant performed the audit to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to whether E was dissolved or whether it was cash assets owned in the course of auditing C’s financial statements, it could have known that E was dissolved and there was no cash assets. However, the Defendant failed to clarify the above problems by failing to perform the audit of C intentionally or by negligence.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff was denied the audit opinion from an external auditor in the course of receiving external audits under the External Audit Act on March 2011, as the existence of E’s cash assets is at issue. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to the rejection of audit opinion from the external auditor, and accordingly around May 201.