1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) evidence submitted in the court of first instance, which is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion of tort; and (b) the Plaintiff’s new argument at the court of first instance is excluded from the description of the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following: (c) the court of first instance’s explanation of this case’s assertion is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article

2. In the appellate court’s new argument, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) at the trial court, the Plaintiff did not appeal the Plaintiff by submitting a written petition to the original branch office of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors’ Office on August 4, 2010, stating that “Around March 2009, the Plaintiff instigated and aided an illegal act of selling similar gasoline.”

However, it is not only unclear in itself the relationship between the above act of C and the claim of this case, but also even after examining all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in relation thereto, it is insufficient for the defendant to be liable for tort against the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.