1. Each appeal filed by the Defendant and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is dismissed.

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim extended at the trial.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is rewritten or added as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A new or additional part of the judgment of the first instance; and

(a)Paragraph 4, 9, of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added at the request of the foreign FF:

(F) At a trial, the testimony was made to the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff was “to cooperate with the Plaintiff to conclude a contract if the unit price for confirmation, reporting, and construction works is possible,” and the circumstances that the Plaintiff and F did not dispute due to the unit price problem of subcontracted construction, and therefore, F is deemed to have consented to the Plaintiff’s subcontracting contract.”

(b)be added “F’s testimony” to the 5th sentence of the first instance court, 16th sentence, and following:

(c)in six pages 11 of the first instance judgment, the phrase “5,279,607 Won” shall be amended to read “114,00,389 Won”;

The following shall be added to the 11th sentence of the first instance court in the letter ".........."

The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of Defendant C’s 5,720,380 won for advance payment on September 9, 2010 (=2,539,450 won) and the amount of 3,311,500 won for advance payment on September 27, 2010 shall be deemed to have been paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff and shall be included in the amount of remaining acquisition of the corporation.

앞서 본 바와 같이 2010. 9. 9.자 고용산재선납금 5,720,380원은 이 사건 미불금 정산내역에 기재된 원고의 미불금채무(⑨, ⑩, ⑪, ⑫ 부분)라고 할 것이고, 갑제5호증의 기재에 의하면, 2010. 9. 27.자 공제조합상환금 3,311,500원은 피고 C이 2010. 9. 27. D 법인 계좌에 입금한 69,000,000원에서 납부된 사실이 인정될 뿐이고, 달리 위 3,311,500원이 원고의 돈이라는 점을 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

(e) entry in Section B and Section 8 of the judgment of the first instance.