1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 13, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 17-1, Eul evidence 17-2, Eul evidence 17-3, Eul evidence 17-3 (C), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul's evidence 4, Eul's evidence 4, 5 (Dismissal of the F Association's E&A), Eul evidence 13 (the F Association's evidence 16), Gap evidence 17-17, Eul evidence 17-17, Eul's evidence 17-3, Eul's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 2, Eul's evidence 3, 4, 5 (each of these evidence), Eul's shares transfer agreement or evidence 18-1, evidence 6, evidence 81, evidence or evidence 17-2, evidence or evidence 10-1, evidence of the board of directors' respectively.

1) The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of corporate restructuring business, the operation and management of the corporate restructuring investment association, etc., and around 207, the Plaintiff is a company organized pursuant to Article 15 of the former Industrial Development Act (hereinafter “A”) by investing KRW 5 billion in the Plaintiff’s corporate restructuring business, the amount of KRW 9 billion by K, KRW 8 billion by L, KRW 5 billion by M Co., Ltd, KRW 5 billion by M Co., Ltd., KRW 3 billion by N Co., Ltd., KRW 2.5 billion by investing KRW 2.5 billion by O Co., Ltd.

(2) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) is a company established for the purpose of construction, cement, transportation, loading and unloading, manufacturing and selling chemical machinery equipment, etc., Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”) is a company established for the purpose of printing (industrial machinery equipment) and Defendant C was appointed on January 6, 2006 by Ulsan District Court Decision 2005 U.S. 11 and resigned on January 11, 201.