1. According to the Plaintiff’s expansion of the purport of the claim in this court, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

1. The grounds alleged by the Defendant at the trial of the first instance do not differ from the allegations in the first instance court, and the judgment of the first instance court accepting the Plaintiff’s claim is justified even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court is re-examineed along with the Defendant’s assertion that the result of the submission of financial transaction information to an enterprise bank added in the trial of the first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for this case is to be stated by the court. The defendant deleted "B" No. 14 under the attached Table 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 7" under the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed "No. 31 August 2017" as "No. 30 June 30, 2017," and deleted "No. 400 million won for which the plaintiff seeks partial claim" under the attached Table 14 of the same judgment of the court of first instance, and "No. 40 million won for which the plaintiff seeks additional payment" from "No. 19 and No. 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance" to "No. 6 of the court of first instance" to "No. 826,762,389 won for the remaining 250,000 won calculated by subtracting the above C. 160,000 won for the remaining 250,010 won for the plaintiff's additional claim No. 201,01.

The plaintiff also sought payment of damages for delay of 15% per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the additional amount, but the plaintiff first sought payment of the additional amount through the incidental appeal of this case. Thus, the base date of 15% per annum is the service date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case.