1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and (b) the part additionally claimed in the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding [a new judgment on a new argument]; and (c) thus, it is acceptable as it is by the main sentence

[Attachment] On April 17, 2014, around 16, 204, the 4th page 14’s “A” was “A, 3, 4, 6, and 8” and “B, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 13 evidence”; the 5th page 21 page 21; the 6th page 1 page “P, Q’s seal impression and P, and each seal on the column for the seal imprint of P, Q’s seal impression” were “A” with the seal imprint affixed on P’s seal imprint column and the seal imprint affixed on Q’s other meeting minutes subject to comparison; the 6th page 5’s “No. 1, 2, 13, 13, 13, 13, 2, 2, and 7.” There is no evidence to acknowledge each of the “No. 1, 2, 3, and 7.”

(3) In full view of the purport of the argument by the appraiser Gap evidence Nos. 23, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 13, and the purport of the entire argument as to the appraiser's appraisal, the board of directors present at the meeting of the defendant Eul resolved to operate the direct driving school. The plaintiff operated each real estate of this case provided by the defendants according to the franchise agreement with the defendants, and the plaintiff suffered considerable loss due to the franchise agreement with the defendants, although it is acknowledged that the plaintiff suffered considerable loss due to the direct driving school with the defendants, it is obvious that the defendant Eul violated his duty as a director in order to obtain personal benefit by taking advantage of the status of the director and therefore,