1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as follows: “1. A.15.15.15.15.” The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case is as follows: “1.14.14.1.1. 1. 3.”

(5) Paragraph (2) shall be amended as follows, and except for adding a judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in the trial, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance.

2. "Freshed"3.b.

(5) Around 2011, the Plaintiff Company paid to the Defendant Company KRW 27 million remaining after reducing the amount of KRW 30 million out of the existing operating oil supply obligation of KRW 57 million. If there exists any money to be paid for the embezzlement of this case from the Defendant Company, such as the Plaintiff Company’s assertion, the Plaintiff Company does not have any reason to pay the Defendant Company the existing operating oil supply obligation of KRW 57 million.

3. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff Company asserts to the effect that each of the instant notes was prepared by H, not the representative director, at the time of preparation, and thus invalid against the Plaintiff Company.

1) In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers and the purport of the whole pleadings, each of the instant papers contains the official seal of the representative director, and affix H’s seal and signature on the side of the statement “H,” which is an official seal,” and there was Defendant C, non-party H, I, and D in the form at the time of the formation of each of the instant notes, and as of November 19, 2012, the date of preparation of each of the instant notes was registered as the representative director from August 2012 to October 2013, but only was in charge of personnel affairs, general accounting, and general management affairs as the chief of the management department, and was not actually carried out by the operator, which led to the joint signature of the Plaintiff Company’s investor and the instant notes.