1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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 for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as follows, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (2-5 “1. Basic Facts”). Therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

[Supplementary or additional parts] The second htd, second 8 Ltd, of the judgment of the court of first instance, if “the head office of head office of head office of head office of head office of head office of head office” is added.

The "AB" of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be "AC" of 8, 3, 12, 18, 23, 4, 13, and 19.

Following the second two instances of the first instance judgment, “D branch offices in Korea” (hereinafter referred to as “Korean branch offices”) shall be added.

From 4th to 16th end of the first instance judgment, the following shall be followed:

【4) The Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a lawsuit respectively with the Australia court upon the occurrence of the dispute regarding the termination agreement in this case. On August 2, 2016, the dispute over the dispute over the instant termination agreement in Australia New Court held that: (a) on August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff should transfer the shares of the Australia headquarters to the Defendant’s side; and (b) the Defendant agreed to transfer the entire shares of the Defendant with respect to Ltd in return for the waiver of the Plaintiff’s claim against the funds useful in the Australia headquarters and the loans borrowed from the Plaintiff; and (c) thus, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim with the Plaintiff for the repayment of a separate price or investment amount in relation to the said transfer.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination on the claim for unjust enrichment related to D

A. During the period in which the Plaintiff’s assertion on the instant partnership agreement was maintained, KRW 1,454,372,806 was paid to the Defendant from the business account in Korea’s branch, while only KRW 1,139,261,735 was paid to the Plaintiff. From among the money paid to the Plaintiff, the earnings paid to the Plaintiff are limited to KRW 95,63,183, and the remainder is paid as the settled amount of the expenses disbursed by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant raises objection to the plaintiff.