The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

after the filing of an appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the following “additional judgment” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph 3, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 3rd page 15 to 21th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part written by this court shall be replaced by the following:

(d)

On May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff and C, F, and the Defendant filed a provisional disposition against the Plaintiff seeking the prohibition of interference with the F’s performance of duties as the Changwon District Court 2017Kahap 1018 against the Plaintiff.

On June 29, 2017, the above court rendered a provisional disposition containing the following: “The Plaintiff shall not interfere with F’s performance of duties as the Defendant’s representative director; and the Defendant’s corporate seal impression and seal card shall be delivered to F within seven days from the date of service of the written decision; and the above written decision was served on the Plaintiff around that time.

2) On July 22, 2019, the Plaintiff was indicted on charges of interference with business as the Changwon District Court 2019 order 1947 decided July 22, 2019 and was charged with the charge of interference with business by filing a complaint with C and F, such as non-performance of duties and interference with business with the Plaintiff.

Of the facts charged, the part regarding interference with the business was that “the Plaintiff did not appear from April 2, 2017, with respect to C’s management by arbitrarily altering or re-issuance of the Defendant’s seal impression, account password, and official seal certificate, etc. on or around April 19, 2017, using the Defendant’s nominal representative director, and thereby preventing C from using it.”

On September 9, 2020, the above court rendered a judgment of innocence against the plaintiff on September 9, 2020, and among them, the reason for the judgment of innocence is that the plaintiff would change the defendant's seal impression through the attorney-at-law in advance.