Daejeon District Court.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts written, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 5, No. 4, No. 5, and No. 10, No. 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

If the first instance judgment Nos. 4, 6, and 7 of the first instance judgment "D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "D") were used as "Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant D")", both "D" and "K" in the second instance judgment Nos. 9, 12, 13, 19, and 5 of the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment No. 4, 16 of the first instance judgment are written as "Defendant D", respectively.

The third list of pages 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added as follows.

The term of office of Defendant FF’s (hereinafter “Defendant FF’s 24th August 24, 200 to March 17, 2005), “The instant contract to establish a collateral security (hereinafter “Defendant FF’s 1”) was signed between December 16, 201 and the representative director as of March 15, 201 to April 30, 2018, between December 10, 201 and June 6, 200 to August 6, 200, respectively, on the ground that the instant contract was signed on June 17, 200 to March 28, 2017, respectively, and was signed on March 17, 2016 to March 28, 2017 on the same date.” < Amended by Act No. 15560, Apr. 30, 2018; Act No. 15560, Mar. 17, 2017>

Then, the part 8 of the first instance judgment “ was prepared” was added to “Defendant E received KRW 50,000,000 around December 2016, as stipulated in the instant protocol of mediation, and KRW 100,000,000, in total, around February 2017.”

The judgment of the court of first instance is written.