1. The Defendants among the judgment of the first instance, including the primary claim added and the conjunctive claim modified by this court.

1. The grounds for this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) each “Defendant D” described in paragraph 1 (basic facts) of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as “D”; (b) each “Defendant E” is used as “E”; (c) the “L” of the 5th class “E” is used as “I”; (d) Defendant C is assigned as “A”; and (e) the 6 and 7th class “A” in the 6 and 7th class “A” is used as “B”; and (e) the “transfer” of the 7th class “B” in the 7th class “B” is used as “the testimony of the witness Q of the court of first instance”; and (e) the testimony of the 5th class “S” is used as “the testimony of the witness Q of the court of first instance”; and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion against the defendants

A. On August 11, 2009, Defendant C concluded the instant contract for the transfer of business between the Plaintiff, G, and F, and notified F, etc. of the fact that the instant contract for the transfer of business was revoked. On March 4, 2010, Defendant C demanded the Plaintiff, etc. to return the money paid as the transfer price of the instant shares, each of the shares listed in the separate sheet, and accordingly, on June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to Defendant C as the refund of the transfer price of the instant shares.

Afterward, Defendant C prepared the instant additional agreement with F on August 31, 2010, stating that the transfer of the instant shares from F would transfer the management rights of Plaintiff and G to F and return the said KRW 100 million already received to the Plaintiff when the transfer of the instant shares was returned to F under the instant agreement.

Meanwhile, with respect to F’s borrowing of KRW 600 million under the name of the Plaintiff on August 2009 and embezzlement thereof, the Plaintiff has a claim for damages of KRW 600 million against F with respect to F. F with negative property, as well as F with respect to I’s liability for damages against the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, the Seoul High Court 2013Na62416 Decided 619,747.