1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is the Plaintiff.

The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is identical to the part of the first instance judgment in addition to the part concerning the plaintiff's argument as to this case, as stated in Paragraph (2) below and Paragraph (3) above, since it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the first instance judgment, it shall be cited as it is in accordance

(Other, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the appeal do not differ significantly 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 first instance court’s judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim is justifiable. Of the grounds of the first instance judgment, each “J” among the grounds of the first instance judgment, shall be deemed to be “Plaintiff’s Intervenor”, and each “this court” shall be deemed to be “Sesansan Branch of the Daejeon District Court.”

The first instance court rendered an appeal as Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na55682, Jan. 29, 2015; the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal as of January 29, 2015; the first instance court appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2015482; and U.S. participated in the lawsuit as of 2014Na55682, Jan. 29, 2015; however, the said appellate court dismissed the appeal as of January 29, 2015 and the conjunctive claim added by the said court, and dismissed the main and conjunctive claim of U.S., and eventually, the first instance court and the above appellate judgment were dismissed.”

On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the judgment "the above judgment" in the second instance judgment shall be applied to "the withdrawal of the plaintiff's assistant intervenor".

Under the 8th sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the "209Gahap730 case" in the first sentence shall be applied to "209Gahap630 case".

In the 11th judgment of the first instance, “No claim shall be made,” and Defendant B and C shall agree on February 15, 2017 and their businesses after the deposit of the said KRW 570 million and delay damages (based on the statement on deposit).