1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

On January 2016, between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is that the court of first instance citing this case is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding adding and using a part of the following as stated in the written judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. A written notice of termination as of October 20, 2010 shall be issued with “the notice of termination as of October 20, 2016,” written on five pages of the judgment of the first instance.

The 5th 4th 5th 5th son of the judgment of the first instance, “i.e., the defendant's office” shall be added as follows.

[1] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., “A., the judgment on KRW 230,000,000 that the Defendant borrowed money from D shall be deducted from the construction cost that the Plaintiff would pay to the Defendant.” The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the Defendant borrowed money from D, shall be as follows.

1) The Plaintiff asserted that “A. The Defendant’s assertion on the claim for the deduction of the loan borrowed from D is that “A. The Defendant, on April 8, 2016, uses the Defendant’s loan from D as construction cost, and C, in order to secure the loan from D, agreed that the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership in the name of D (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”) was made on the instant land in order to secure the loan, and that the instant construction cost was paid as much as the Defendant borrowed from D. The Plaintiff agreed to the said agreement, and agreed to deduct the Defendant’s loan from the construction cost to be paid by C and the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant’s use of the loan from D should be deemed to have been repaid.”

The defendant borrowed the amount of KRW 230,000,000 from D, but this is not the construction work of this case but the construction work of this case for use for other construction expenses, such as racing.