1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Article 750 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "Therefore, the defendants shall be liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the illegal act. Therefore, the defendants shall be liable to the plaintiff for damages caused by the illegal act under Article 750 of the Civil Code or joint illegal act under Article 760 of the Civil Code. Thus, the defendants shall claim to the defendants for the payment of the amount stated in the claim as part of the compensation for damages."

B. On July 30, 2012, the first instance court's first instance court's decision No. 8-9 stated that "it was acknowledged that a new disposition was issued without suspicion (defluence of evidence) on July 30, 2012, and that "the first instance court's decision was issued on July 30, 2012, and that the plaintiff filed a complaint and reappeal with the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, but it was recognized that the above non-prosecution disposition was maintained as it was."

C. Part 7 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court " alone with the facts admitted" was written by the following: "All the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to the trial court, including the above-mentioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 53 through 55, and N’s testimony by N’s witness at the trial, and all the circumstances surrounding the allegations."

In light of the content and purport of the 7th judgment of the first instance court, the part “,” in the 20th judgment, shall be determined as follows: “In light of the content and purport of the 7th judgment, the Plaintiff’s specific assertion in the instant case where there is insufficient evidence of proof as to the cause for Defendant Myasset and Nonghyup to bear the duty of supervision and supervision over the executory company, etc. and the duty to exercise faithfully the said Defendants’ claims

(e) Decision of the first instance; and