1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the Defendant’s defense 1) D filed the instant appeal on April 27, 2016 as the representative director of the Plaintiff, and as at the time the instant appeal was filed, D was dissolved on December 1, 2014 as the Plaintiff was deemed to have lost the status of the representative director of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant appeal is unlawful as it was filed by a person without the power of representation. (2) The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff embezzled the Plaintiff’s money, and filed a claim for the payment of the amount of the amount of the acquisition on the ground that C acquired the claim for the return of the amount of embezzlement, which C had against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired by transfer the claim for the return of the amount of the acquisition on August 21, 20

However, the above change of the plaintiff's claim is unlawful as it does not coincide with the basis of the claim.

3) The transfer of a claim for the return of embezzlement against the Defendant by C to the Plaintiff is null and void as it constitutes a litigation trust, with the main purpose of enabling the Plaintiff to conduct procedural acts. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed by a person without standing to be a party. (B) In the case of a corporation dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act as to the lawfulness of the instant appeal, unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation or otherwise provided for in the general meeting of shareholders, the director at the time of dissolution shall be naturally a liquidator, and only such liquidator shall be an institution executing and representing the liquidation affairs of the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da7607, May 27, 1994). According to the evidence No. 16, according to the Plaintiff’s entry in the evidence No. 16, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was registered as the representative director at the time when it is deemed dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(