Plaintiff

The appeal by the company B and the appeal by the defendant against the plaintiff A limited liability company is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be individually counted.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff B and the defendant's appeal is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is different from the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, it is recognized that the facts of first instance and the judgment are legitimate.

Therefore, this Court's judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for the following parts added or written by the court below.

Following the 12th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part “as seen” in paragraph (1) of the same Article is added to the sum of KRW 181,50,000 (104,50,000 for legal advice on finance and tax verification costs of KRW 77,00,00) paid by the Plaintiff A, in light of the fact that the total purchase price of the instant share sales contract exceeds KRW 45.3 billion, the amount of the instant share sales contract’s total purchase price is KRW 104,50,000,000,000.

Article 15-16 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that "The legal representative of Gap No. 16-1, 2-2" part of the 13th 15-16 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "A," comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of the evidence No. 16-1, 2, and No. 35 of the evidence, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff A has a D with a 100-% share of investment as its member, and entrusts the management and entrustment of assets to the plaintiff B, who is the executive member of the business of Eul who is the above member, and the plaintiff B's legal representative is "."

The judgment of the court of first instance No. 14 of the 14 pages 18-20 of the judgment of the court of first instance “Plaintiff A” is reasonable.

“The Plaintiff A expressed his intent to claim damages on the ground of the non-performance of the instant share sales contract to the Defendant by notifying the Plaintiff B of the said compensation on his behalf.

It is reasonable to view it.

“ ..........”

Therefore, the plaintiff A's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the plaintiff A's claim and the plaintiff B's claim shall be dismissed for each reason.