The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

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

1. As to the plaintiff's claim for damages

A. On the grounds in a written judgment, a judgment on a party’s assertion and other means of offence and defense shall be indicated to the extent that it is possible to recognize that the text is justifiable, and no judgment on all parties’ allegation and means of offence and defense shall be required

(see Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if a court’s ruling does not state a direct determination on the matters alleged by the parties, if it is possible to find out that the court accepted or rejected such assertion in light of the overall purport of the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be said that the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da87174, Apr. 26, 2012). B.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that “the Defendant dispatched information equivalent to external expenses to F Co., Ltd. F (former E Co., Ltd.) as the chief of the headquarters of the C Bank on October 2009, and provided it to C Bank without any legal basis, and incurred losses to the Plaintiff by illegally handling the work of the work as the chief agent of the business management group even after the company entered the workshop, and thus, the Plaintiff shall compensate the Plaintiff for part of its property losses,” and did not explicitly decide on the premise that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, a controlling shareholder of the said company, was not included in the parties at the time of the conclusion of the instant implementation agreement constitutes grounds for invalidation of the instant implementation agreement.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as stated in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting logical and empirical rules.