1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following cases. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the court of first instance, which was written after the dismissal, shall be subject to the 3rd instance court's 16th court's 17th court's 17th court's 17th court's 17th court's 200

6. Forms 19 through 8 of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed by the following:

“2) The Defendant’s assertion” refers to the Plaintiff’s claim that KRW 10,00,00,000, out of KRW 110,000,00 for losses caused by embezzlement No. 1, cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s losses. However, there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff was refunded value-added tax in connection with the Plaintiff’s purchase of value-added tax. Even if the Plaintiff received a tax invoice from the Plaintiff as alleged in the Defendant, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. However, even if the Plaintiff received value-added tax from the Plaintiff, it is a false construction that does not actually exist, and ② Article 39(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act excludes input tax deduction if the entry of the tax invoice is written differently from the fact, the value-added tax refunded by the Plaintiff is the amount that should be recovered again, and rather, it is possible that the Plaintiff would bear penalty tax pursuant to Article 60 of the Value-Added Tax Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director of G1 is the Plaintiff’s shares should not be accepted.