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

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the pertinent part is modified or added as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. On the 2nd, 12th, 3th and 7th of the first instance judgment, the “this Court” in the 5th and 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 7th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 208

B. From Nos. 7 to 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following shall be followed.

Therefore, according to the E-related civil conciliation, the defendant is 6,66,66 won [=18,33,33 won x 4/11, and less than won(hereinafter the same shall apply).

) As to the former and the latter, from October 1, 201 to 11,66,66 won (i.e., KRW 18,33,33 x 7/11) and the latter, from February 1, 2012 on the date following the second payment date to July 16, 2012, total damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum 20% per annum from July 16, 2012 in which each Plaintiff fully repaid its obligations to E (=7,723,132 won = 66,666,66,46 won x 20% x 20% x 766% x 290/366) and the latter’s claims for reimbursement are not made to the Plaintiff (i.e., the Plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement).

Even if the plaintiff's claim is claimed for damages due to the tort, the defendant's damage claim is extinctive prescription.