The defendant shall set forth in the attached Table 1 list to the plaintiff.

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment by this Court is as follows: (a) it is identical to the statement “1. A. Recognition” in the first instance court, except that the reasoning for this decision is that “not later than March 1, 2014” in the fourth sentence of the judgment of the first instance is “not later than the first police officer on April 2014”; and (b) it is, in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. 1) The plaintiff asserts that the main cause of the instant supply contract is to be revoked. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant entered into the instant lease contract with the Eff Capital, and that the primary machinery of this case was to cancel the instant supply contract by deceiving the plaintiff as if he had ownership, even though the ownership of Eff Capital was owned by Eff Capital.

As to this, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact of the instant lease contract at the time of the instant supply contract, and did not deceiving the Plaintiff, and agreed to substitute the instant primary machinery with the instant secondary machinery around May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion of cancellation of the contract is groundless.

B) Taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the facts admitted prior to the determination, the Defendant acknowledged the fact that the Defendant entered into the instant supply contract without notifying the Plaintiff of the conclusion of the instant lease contract (which is contrary to the above evidence Nos. 16, No. 17-1, and No. 2, part of the evidence No. 30, and witness E and C’s testimony of the first instance court is difficult to believe, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact of entering into the instant lease contract only with the fact of fact inquiry about the filial capital of the first instance court. This constitutes the Defendant’s deception and the Defendant’s assertion that the instant first machinery was replaced with the instant second machinery.