1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added after the last entry of the "Indemnite."

“Around April 2009 to February 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that the agreement is null and void since D, which was the representative director of the Plaintiff company at that time, abused his/her power of representation for his/her own interest, was an act of breach of trust by abusing his/her power of representation for his/her own interest. However, even though the representative director of the corporation abused his/her authority for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party’s interest regardless of the company’s profit, the act of the representative director as an act of the corporation is valid. However, if the other party to the act knew or could have known the intention of the representative director, the act becomes null and void for the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da3649, Jul. 28, 2005). However, in this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that D did not know or otherwise have agreed with the Defendant for the purpose of pursuing the profit of the Plaintiff company or a third party, the Plaintiff’s allegation that D did not have any other evidence.

“Although the Plaintiff Company obtained the benefit as alleged by the Defendant, it is the Defendant’s will.