1. At the request of the Defendant E that is changed in exchange from the trial, Defendant E shall develop the Gyeongwon City.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is modified, deleted, and added; and (b) the decision on the claim of the defendant E, which was changed in exchange for the above trial, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment as stated below 4, as to the new argument made by the defendant A and B in the trial; and (c) thus, the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

2. Change, deletion, and addition of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, each “Plaintiff Company” shall be changed to “Dong Asia Construction Industry Co., Ltd.”

Reasons for the judgment of the first instance shall be 2-C.

Part of the port (from 10 pages 8 to 11 of the judgment of the first instance) shall be deleted.

On August 25, 2014, the first instance court’s decision Nos. 9 and 10 included “h. East Asian Construction Industry Co., Ltd. was decided on August 25, 2014, and T was appointed as the manager of East Asian Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (Seoul Central District Court 2014 Gohap146).”

3. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 43, and 44 (including a serial number, if any) as to the claim against defendant Eul that had been changed in exchange at the trial, defendant Eul filed an application for provisional seizure against claim with the Jung-gu District Court 2013Kadan3600 on May 31, 2013, upon which 38 persons, including the debtor for the development of Kyungwon city, and the third party debtor, as stated in the list No. 6 list S, are the debtor, and the third party debtor, and the decision of execution was made on May 31, 2013. After which the defendant Eul filed a lawsuit against Kyungwon City Development for payment claim, such as wages No. 2013Gada17548, which was decided on June 20, 2013, the above decision was made as the executive title, and it was concluded as a provisional seizure decision with the third party debtor G, MH, N, and 3134 others.