1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court concerning this part of the basic facts is that the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “1. Basic Facts”) is the same as that of the given part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification as follows. As such, this part is cited by the main text

[Revision] Part 5 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is that “E” in Part 5 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “E” (the trade name of January 11, 2018 was changed to H, a stock company, “H.” hereinafter collectively before and after the change.

On February 23, 2002, July 30, 2014, June 19, 2017, Defendant C is the former representative director of E, and Defendant C is the former representative director of E, and Defendant C is all the latter.

Defendant D, as well as Defendant D’s “Defendant D,” in Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, shall be deemed to be “Defendant”.

From 6th to 7th of the judgment of the first instance court, the second to 6th of the judgment are as follows.

"In the absence of dispute", "In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 10 through 15, Gap evidence 16-9, Gap evidence 18, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings"

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion E is that due to the restoration to the original state following the rescission of the joint research and development agreement of this case, the plaintiff A is obligated to pay the plaintiff A 20 million won, the 110 million won to the plaintiff B, and the interest and delay damages on each of the above money.

On the other hand, C, who was the representative director, was dismissed as the representative director, transferred KRW 200,000 to the defendant from the corporate account of E in order to secure its operating funds, by pretending to repay the convertible bonds of this case, even though it was dismissed as the representative

However, the Defendant knowingly received the above KRW 200,000,000, and thereby took part in the tort of embezzlement or breach of trust as seen above C’s occupational embezzlement or breach of trust. As such, the Defendant jointly and severally paid KRW 200,000,000 to E as compensation for damages.