All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against all the plaintiffs, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the Defendant’s responsibility due to the violation of laws and regulations, the lower court applied for authorization with the electric charge that reflects the rate of increase in prices and the rate of increase in costs of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, or the rate of increase in the electric charge calculated by the Minister of Knowledge Economy, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the electric charge is not to be calculated or its authorization should be granted at the level of compensating the general cost calculated by the Korea Electric Power Corporation under the interpretation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, including the Electric Utility Act; and (b) it is reasonable to deem that the Korea Electric Power Corporation calculates the electric charge at a level lower than the general cost by reflecting the price increase or the effort to reduce costs of the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

Even if Korea Electric Power Corporation's AE, it was judged that the Defendant could not be regarded as violating the laws.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on directors' liability.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the Defendant’s responsibility due to breach of duty, the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, reflected the rate of increase in the electricity rates notified by the Defendant from the Minister of Knowledge Economy, had the board of directors of the Korea Electric Power Corporation deliberate and decide on the electricity rates, and

Even if the defendant failed to perform his duties as AE of the Korea Electric Power Corporation, it was determined that the defendant did not neglect his duties.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.