The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s first instance judgment was followed on February 28, 2019, and the first instance court’s second 8th 8th e.g., “the Plaintiff was subject to a delivery of the Plaintiff.” In addition, pursuant to the first instance court’s judgment on February 28, 2019, the Plaintiff added one tape recorder among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto, and the movable property listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 1 half of the Samsung television No. 2 (the half of the separate list No. 2 list No. 1 appears to be a clerical error in anti-sliding) and was excluded from the enforcement. In addition, the Plaintiff added each entry (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) in accordance with Article 316(16).

(Provided, however, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the first instance, which judged on the defendant's assertion and the claim for counterclaim B, the first instance court's finding of facts and determination of the first instance court's counterclaim are justifiable, and even after further closely examined, the claim for invalidation by unfair conduct, the claim for cancellation due to non-performance of obligation, and the claim for counterclaim B by the selector B based on the premise thereof are all reasonable.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of “A. Additional Determination” to the Defendant’s assertion by repeating or adding it in the trial, the grounds for this part are as follows: (a) from 10 to 11 of the 7th judgment of the first instance to 2 of the 11th judgment; and (b) therefore, they are cited by the text of

The defendant further determined that the plaintiff continued to operate the instant temple B at the time of the instant sales contract, and the name of the representative who introduced that the plaintiff would operate the instant temple, etc. belongs to the name of the representative.