1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2.No. 3rd 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written in the following manner:

2. From 4th to 5th 1th 1th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 3th 2

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages amounting to 12,00,000,000 won and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.The five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

"3. Judgment on the Grounds for Defenses and Counteractions as to the Claims for Main Claims and Nos. 6.10 to 17 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

【2) Next, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the health account, Gap evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 6 as to the assertion of subrogation as stated in the above paragraph (2), Eul transferred KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s bank account on November 2, 2012 and lent the money. The fact that the defendant paid KRW 7,00,000 out of the above loans to Eul by June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2015 can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant can claim reimbursement of KRW 7,000,000 against the plaintiff. On July 1, 2015, the day following the day following the defendant's final subrogation payment, the defendant's claim for reimbursement was set off against the plaintiff's claim for compensation.

In addition, the facts that the Defendant’s preparatory brief dated August 11, 2016, stating the Defendant’s declaration of offset, was delivered to the Plaintiff on August 12, 2016, are apparent in the record, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages was extinguished within the scope equal to the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement, retroactively from July 1, 2015, the above set-off date.

As such, the defendant's objection to offset against this part of the set-off is justified.

From 7th to 10th of the judgment of the first instance.