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

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The plaintiff's second preliminary claims added by this court are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination under paragraph (2). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2 pages 12-13 "A evidence 1, 5, and Eul evidence 2 (including spot numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply)" are "A evidence 1, A evidence 5-3, and Eul evidence 2."

3 side 8 pages 2, 3, 5 through 10, 11 through 13, and 11, 18 of A, “Evidence 9, 10, 11-1, 2, and 12 of A” are the same as “Evidence 9, 10, 11-1, 2, and 12 of A.”

4. The "preliminary Claim" in the 5th parallel shall be deemed to be "preliminary Claim".

4. The 8th parallel "Article 36-1" shall be changed to "Article 35-2".

"Evidences 2, 3, 5 through 8, 1, 2, 8, 13, 14, and 18 of A, 2, 2, 2, 5 through 8, 2, 13, 14, and 18 of A, 2, 1, 2, 8-1, 2, 13 through 20 of A, 2, 13 through 20."

At the bottom of 6 pages, “the amended articles of association of this case” shall be read as “the amended articles of association of this case”.

2. Determination as to the second preliminary claim added by this Court

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have worked as an employee subject to the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits from April 1, 2008 to December 20, 2008, when the Plaintiff was not registered as an auditor on the Defendant’s corporate register, and from April 1, 2014 to November 30, 2016, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a retirement allowance of the above service period of KRW 37,197,393, and delay damages therefrom.

B. The Plaintiff established the Defendant and owned 15% of the Defendant’s shares in accordance with the partnership agreement with C and H around December 2005, and around June 2007, H held 25% of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s wife, C and C’s wife, 10%, 55%, and 10% of the shares of the Defendant after H withdrawn from the partnership relationship.