Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the first instance are as follows: ① each "29,70,000 won" of the second and third parallel parallels 19 and 6 of the second and third parallels 19 and 29,000 won; ③ the "factory of the defendant" of the third parallel 1 is as follows: "the factory of the defendant is on the ground of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City factory 93,000,000,000"; ② the "including the number" of the second parallels is as follows: the second parallels is as follows; ② the second parallels 4 from the fourth to the second parallels 5 and the third parallels 2,00,00 won are deleted; ③ the second parallels 5 and the third parallels 6 from the second parallels 5 to the second parallels 16 from the second parallels 3 to the second parallels 6 from the second parallels 16 to the second parallels 3 and 6 from the second parallels 16 to the above judgment.

B. Even if the Plaintiff’s judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff is based on the records or images of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, and 9, or the result of a partial appraisal by an appraiser A of the first instance trial, it is insufficient to view the instant machine as having the performance generally required by social norms, and thus, it cannot be found any other data to reverse the factual recognition or judgment of the relevant cited part. Thus, the Plaintiff’s ground for appeal on a different premise.