1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, respectively.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is that the plaintiff primarily filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 58,710,352 and KRW 59,206,064 against the defendants and jointly filed a claim for damages based on the tort of KRW 49,910,585, the first instance court dismissed all of the main claims and rendered a judgment of the first instance court that partly accepted the conjunctive claim. Since the plaintiff appealed only to the defendants, the judgment of this court is limited to the conjunctive claim partially accepted.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) adding “a distribution schedule as of April 10, 2015” to “V case’s distribution schedule as of April 10, 2015; (b) applying “a notarial deed” as “a notarial deed”; and (c) regarding the scope of liability for damages as of the scope of liability for damages as set forth in the following (c), the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance; and

(1) The court of first instance, which affirmed the occurrence of the Defendants’ damages liability against the Plaintiff, is just and there is no error as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, even if the evidence examined by this court was neglected.

3. Change of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the scope of the Defendants’ liability to compensate for damages is as follows: (a) the judgment of the court of first instance on the scope of the Defendants’ liability between five and six (6).

The Plaintiff’s amount of damages is the amount that the Plaintiff could have received more dividends if the Defendants did not receive dividends.

If the creditors prepare a new distribution schedule based on the amount distributed to each of the creditors in accordance with the distribution schedule pursuant to the aforementioned distribution schedule, the amount that the plaintiff could have received more dividends is as stated in the annexed Table of the Appellate Trials. Therefore, if the amount that the plaintiff could have received more dividends is adjusted, 35,713,307 won, such as the annexed Table of the Appellate Trials, and the defendant B among them.