The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the subject of option exercise, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc. agreed to grant the Plaintiff the right of choice on the repurchase right having the nature of option claim and the right of choice on the share difference compensation claim.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of a contract, Article 380 of the Civil Act.

2. As to the Defendant’s exemption from liability and the grounds of appeal on the application of Article 385(1) of the Civil Act as to whether the declaration of intent to exercise the right of choice is possible, and the Defendant’s exemption from liability based on the principle of risk burden, and the grounds of appeal on the application of Article 385(1) of the Civil Act, the declaration of intent to choose in the selective claim is, in principle, not withdrawn without the other party’s consent (Article 382(2) of the Civil Act). However, even after the option holder expresses his/her intent to choose, in exceptional

(See Supreme Court Decision 70Da877 delivered on July 11, 1972. The court below held that the plaintiff exercised the right of repurchase stipulated in the agreement of this case and the contract of this case, but in special circumstances in light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the plaintiff's original declaration of intention was withdrawn upon the plaintiff's claim for compensation for stock price difference. Upon the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the market price of the shares of this case, the acquisition price of the shares of this case, and the total interest amount.

Examining the records in accordance with the above legal principles, while some of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is not appropriate, the above judgment of the court below is justified.