1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Partial acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is "1. Basic Facts", "2. Party's assertion", and "3. Judgment."

As to each part of the “paragraph”, this Court cited it in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that this Court is identical to the reasons stated in each of the above parts. (b) As to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, “3. Na. Na,” with respect to the part above, is identical to the reasons stated in this part, and thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main text of Article 42

[Supplementary portions] The 2nd 2nd 7th 2nd e.g., the 7th e., the 2nd e.g., the 2nd e., the 2nd e.g., the e., the 7th e.g., the e., the e., the e.,

The judgment of the court of first instance, 7 pages 9 to 8, "Therefore, the defendant has the obligation to return KRW 2 and 7 of this case to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant has the obligation to return KRW 2 and 7 of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances."

A letter 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall consist of 7 to 8 pages below the following:

【B) On January 10, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and deposited KRW 7,000,000 to a corporate bank account under the name of the Defendant managed by D on March 12, 2014, and paid KRW 7,00,000 in full. Around October 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 4,80,000 in cash to D in full, and thus, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to return KRW 2,70 to the Plaintiff.

(1) We examine the second gold source part of this case.

First of all, according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 56 through 60, Eul evidence No. 61-1 and Eul evidence No. 61-2, the defendant paid 30,000 won in his/her own cash to the bank on January 10, 2014, and issued and issued the same amount of his/her own check to the bank, and the plaintiff purchased the same day through the auction procedure (U.S. District Court AA).