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 follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications.

[Modification] According to the statement of No. 2 of the first instance judgment No. 5 of the first instance court’s judgment, “A” is deemed as “A evidence No. 2 and No. 1 according to the statement of No. 2 of the first instance court’s evidence.”

Part V of the judgment of the first instance court stated that "no approval is granted" in Part 8 of the judgment of the fifth instance shall be "no approval."

The following contents shall be added to the fifth decision of the court of first instance after the "no grounds exist" in the 11th decision.

[On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that D had resigned from the office of the defendant's director at the time of resignation on April 14, 2014, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of evidence No. 17, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff pointed out that the starting date of the contract term under the instant advisory contract (as of July 1, 2014) is after the date of resignation of the Defendant Company Directors (as of June 27, 2014). However, whether the instant advisory contract constitutes one’s own transaction under the provisions of the said Article shall be based on the “date of contract formation,” which is the time when the binding unity of the binding values on the specific contents of the contract between both parties is effective, and shall not be based on the “date of contract commencement,” which is only the time when the binding values of such binding values begin to be applied as they are.

[] On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the phrase “each entry of No. 7-1 of the evidence No. 7” in the 5th page 14 of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to read “No. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4-3, Eul evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 7-1, and Eul evidence No. 8.”

The following matters shall be added after the second page of the judgment of the first instance.

On October 2014, the defendant pointed out these points in the self-audit according to the request of the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service, and on October 2014.