1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal and the conjunctive claim added at the trial and the appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment to be viewed in Paragraph 2 as to the plaintiff's conjunctive main claim added in the trial, and as to the plaintiff's conjunctive main claim added in the trial, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the bottom of the 7th 3rd , “The payment would have been made” (in the case of Seoul High Court 201No2441, the related criminal case, the Seoul High Court 201No2441, the defendant E is merely 4,000,000 won and thus, the actual payment was made by the defendant A as part of the 6,250,000 won under the share acquisition agreement, and it cannot be readily concluded that the 2.22 billion won delivered to the bond business operator as the fee was actually made by the defendant A, and that the 2,280,000 won returned as the supply cost was not attributed to the defendant A. In addition, as to the 2.2.80,000 won returned as the supply cost, since the loan was made from the defendant Eul, this part was merely 2.2.8,000,000 won which was paid as the purchase price by the defendant Eul and this part became final and conclusive).

Part 10 7 "No. 12-3, and 4 of Category A, "No. 29," and No. 11-7

The following is added to “(the Seoul High Court 201No2441 was sentenced and confirmed to the same purport)”, respectively. The 11th 10th 10th 10th 10th 11th “A evidence 29,” “I 1st 1st 1st 1st 3th 16th 16th 16th 2th 3th 3th 200,” “F, which received the stock supply cost, prepared a receipt for cash storage and receipt in the future E,” respectively, and the 5th 5th 3th 12th 2th 12th 2th 2th 3th 3th 200.