1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding a judgment on the defendant’s assertion in the trial, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The defendant at the last place of the second instance judgment of the first instance court on the part in which the defendant is written and added shall be "the plaintiff".

The following parts shall be added to the 8th end of the first instance judgment.

“The Plaintiff asserts that the liability of the company that was dismissed before the expiration of the term of office without any justifiable reason is a statutory liability under the Commercial Act, which is different from the default or tort liability, and thus, it cannot be limited in calculating the amount of damages. However, as seen earlier in this case, the limitation of liability is merely limiting the amount of damages by taking into account various circumstances according to the ideology of the damage compensation system, which is fair in sharing damages, rather than the limitation of liability by negligence as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and the court recognizes the liability for damages and limits the amount of damages in light of the ideology of the damage compensation system, which is fair in allocating damages, the determination of fact-finding or its ratio on the grounds for mitigation of liability falls under the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is recognized that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19603, Nov. 30, 207).