1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed damages against the Defendant and C and damages for delay. The first instance court dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s claims.

In this regard, the Plaintiff appealed to the part of KRW 10,277,43 of the claim against the Defendant. Thus, the subject of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the above part and the subject of the claim added by this Court.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable even if the Plaintiff’s citing the judgment of the court of first instance examined the newly submitted evidence by taking into account the allegations and reasons supplemented by the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment on the additional claims made by the plaintiff in the trial as set forth in the following paragraph (3). Therefore, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

(excluding the part which is not the scope of the trial on the other hand). 3. Determination as to additional claims

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) as of March 31, 2012, E had an outstanding amount of KRW 6,679,500 to K; (b) the Defendant prepared and issued a deposit account for the outstanding amount in the name of L without the Plaintiff’s instruction even though L/C operated by the Plaintiff was not paid the outstanding amount; and (c) the Plaintiff offered K an implied amount of KRW 20,362,250 to K from April 2, 2012 to June 23, 2012; and (b) the Plaintiff collected KRW 19,250,000 from K to collect KRW 19,112,50,000; and (c) the Defendant transferred the outstanding amount of KRW 3 million from D’s account operated by the Plaintiff on May 12, 2012 to L’s account; and (d) sold the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff as if it were received from K, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 791,7,791,7500,500.

B. We examine the judgment, Gap evidence Nos. 30-3, 5, and 10 are not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

4. Conclusion.