1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for an additional determination as to the following matters, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The decision on the additional claim (the plaintiff's conjunctive claim grounds)

A. The Plaintiff’s new corporation assumed the debt owed to the Defendant E under the condition of suspending the acceptance of the shares of E.

Therefore, as long as the new corporation is unable to accept the shares of E, the above assumption of the obligation is null and void, and the defendant obtained benefits without any legal grounds in relation to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the amount of this case, and the defendant is obligated to return the amount of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the new corporation took over the obligations of the E against the Defendant under the condition of suspending the acceptance of the E’s stocks only with the entries of subparagraph 1-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, in the contractual relationship for a third party, where a contract which forms the legal relationship between the abortiond person and the summaryd person is null and void or terminated, the liquidation of the contractual relationship shall be conducted between the abortiond person and the summaryd person who is the party to the contract. Thus, even if the abortiond person has already paid benefits to a third party, barring any special circumstance, the abortiond person may not seek the return thereof against the third party on the ground of restitution or unjust enrichment arising from the cancellation of the contract, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7566, 7573, Jul. 22, 2005).

The plaintiff's conjunctive cause of claim does not appear to be any mother and there is no reason.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are without merit.