As a result, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff is limited to the scope cited by the judgment of the first instance among the defendant's counterclaims.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s relationship 1) is a company that manufactures and sells a stilling machine, which is a machine for cutting the stilling, and the location of its head office is Daejeon Seo-gu E. The Defendant is a company that provides facility leasing services. 2) H as the Plaintiff’s representative director I’s children, served as the head of the Plaintiff’s business from April 1, 2005, and was registered as the Plaintiff’s auditor from March 31, 2010, but died on October 10, 2015.

3) From February 17, 1994 to November 2, 2015, F was a person who worked as the Plaintiff’s team leader from February 17, 1994 to November 2, 2015, and on November 13, 2013 upon the H’s request, F completed the business registration on the following grounds: “trade name, location, business location, Daejeon E, business pattern manufacturing, business type small machinery processing, and manufacturing. 4) B completed the business registration on April 5, 2015 at the H’s request.”

B. B and the Defendant’s conclusion of facility leasing contract 1) H H had B conduct 13 SEUS-1350V (ZEUS-1350 V, hereinafter “instant machinery”).

(B) As if the purchase was made from F, B had the Defendant file an application for facility leasing (lease) with the Defendant, and accordingly, B filed an application for the lease of the instant machinery with the Defendant on April 22, 2015. (2) The Defendant’s person in charge of the management of the Defendant notified the Defendant that he/she could not independently conclude a lease contract exceeding KRW 100,000 on the Plaintiff’s application for the lease of the instant machinery because it was too long as B

Accordingly, H operates the small president company at the Plaintiff’s workplace, and B leases part of the factory from the Plaintiff to the KRW 10 million.