1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate

Accordingly, the reasoning of this court’s judgment is citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following “the amended portion of 2.2.” as it is by the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(However, the portion revised by the court of first instance as to co-defendant G and H is excluded). 2. The portion revised by the court of first instance is as follows from 3th to 4th 6th .

“Defendant D is an internal director of Defendant A from March 12, 2012 to December 11, 2013 and from March 20, 2014 to December 20, 2014; Defendant B was an internal director of Defendant B from November 2, 2012 to December 11, 2013; and Defendant C’s internal director from January 24, 2013 to December 17, 2013, overall control over the business of Defendant C. The overall control over the business of Defendant C. From January 24, 2013 to December 11, 2013. From March 20, 2014 to March 20, 2014, Defendant A’s internal director and representative director from March 20, 2014 to December 14, 2013 to the present date,” Defendant B’s “this case’s domestic warehouse was in effect managing Defendant B’s free trade agreement.”

The 6th 14th son of the judgment of the first instance shall be the witness of the first instance court.

The 6th day of the first instance judgment to 7th day of the 17th day of the 15th day shall be as follows.

“Defendant D, E, and F arbitrarily released and embezzled 1007.12 tons of the Plaintiff’s freezing red snit (i.e., 1848.3 tons - 57.58 tons of the discarded customs clearance - 7.58 tons of the released quantity 783.6 tons) which must be required in the warehouse of this case.

Therefore, Defendant D, E, F, and Defendants A, C, and B, who are embezzlement actors, performed their duties as the representative director or the actual operator of each of the above Defendants, jointly with the Plaintiff, and the amount equivalent to customs duties, warehouse expenses, and amount equivalent thereto.