1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Defendant on 2013.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's argument of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

From the 2nd to the 2nd to the 3rd, the 2nd to the 3rd to the 2nd.

C. On April 25, 2013, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s “M” corporation M et al. on March 2011.

The "information on the implementation of mass acquisition of nonpublic information M C" (hereinafter referred to as the "information of this case"), which was known in the course of negotiations with M in the process of participating in the share acquisition agreement between B and C.

) 5. 5. 10 to 12.3. 4.

(3) Even if the time of disclosure of the instant information was March 21, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased 13,800 shares of C on March 21, 201, which was the day of disclosure, and subsequently purchased C shares without selling C shares thereafter, the Plaintiff appears to have “written confirmation of acceptance” of 6 shares as “written undertaking of acceptance.”

9.On the 9th 5th e.g. “Entry” shall add the following:

【Partial testimony of the N of the Witness of the Party and the Party (except for the portion rejected later)】 10 pages 5, the following shall be added:

A witness of the trial at the trial testimony that the Plaintiff and financial investors participating in M&A disclosed the fact that the company subject to M&A was "C" for the first time on March 19, 201, but X purchased 2,600 shares within the country because X was lower than KRW 7,000,00, which is the acquisition price of shares outside the country of C on March 18, 201 and on March 21, 2011, it is clear that the company subject to M&A was aware of the fact that the company was C, and other buyers, such as P and AA, recommended to participate in the M&A agreement, are not believed in light of the fact that the company was aware of the fact that the company subject to M&A was C, and other buyers, such as P and A, recommended to purchase C shares before March 19, 2011.

(1) at the bottom of 10, 7: