1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) each “D” of the acts No. 5, 5 and 8 under the second sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “I”; and (b) the Plaintiff’s additional assertion shall be deemed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment under the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance

(Evidence of the first instance court's findings and determination are legitimate even if the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the first instance presented to this court was based on each evidence presented to this court). 2. Determination as to the plaintiff's additional assertion

A. As to the assertion of confession by Defendant C, the Plaintiff asserted that, in the reply submitted to the court of first instance, Defendant C is liable for the return of the instant bus and KRW 6 million invested in the Defendant Cooperative. As such, the Defendant Cooperative and the Plaintiff are jointly and severally liable for payment of KRW 6 million in cash and KRW 35 million in total incurred by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s non-sale of the instant bus due to the Defendant’s non-performance of payment.

However, although Defendant C proposed that Defendant C would return the bus of this case to the Plaintiff in the process of the decision-making process with regard to whether to return the bus of this case, it appears to be a statement at a level different from the existence of joint liability borne by Defendant C as a result of the decision-making process with regard to whether to return the bus of this case, it is difficult to view the Defendant C’s statement as a confession or is merely a right confession, and thus, the court is not bound.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. On September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff sold the instant bus to a third party without permission, even though Defendant C promised to return the cash contribution amounting to KRW 6 million and the instant bus at the head office of the Defendant Cooperative, on September 20, 2016.