1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The second lawsuit and the trial scope of the defendant;

A. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant principal lawsuit against the Defendant. On October 17, 2013, when the lawsuit was pending, the rehabilitation procedure was commenced against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gohap185) and the Defendant’s custodian B, the rehabilitation debtor, filed a lawsuit filing on November 18, 2013, and then filed a counterclaim with the permission of the court in charge of rehabilitation procedures on November 22, 2013.

However, the rehabilitation procedure for the defendant was completed on December 3, 2014 while the lawsuit is pending, and on December 29, 2014, the defendant filed an application for re-litigation (Article 59(4) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since the parties to the lawsuit are the same as the parties to the lawsuit at the time of the filing of the lawsuit through two times on the part of the defendant, the relationship between the lawsuit and the indication of the parties is not indicated.

B. Meanwhile, since the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and limited the scope of the appeal to the counterclaim part, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the counterclaim part.

2. The reasons for the court’s explanation in this part are as follows: (a) No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Agreement on the Termination of the Contract for the Use of the Right to Goods is set aside on December 15, 201 and the Agreement on the Termination of the Contract for the Use of the Right to Goods; (b) No. 4 of the Agreement on the Termination of the Contract for the Use of the Right to Goods and the Agreement on the Agreement on the Contract for the Use of the Right to Goods; and (d) the Return of the Certificate of Malogram Return of the Certificate of Malogram on October 10, 2012 is identical to the portion of “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Certificate of Malogram is returned and the Certificate of Ma

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, 10,400,00 won (690,000 x 160 won per head as requested by the defendant) equivalent to 690,000 won (12 million - 100,000 head - 410,000), which is the quantity not returned among the items of the negligent program that was paid to the defendant under the agreement of this case, and 1,725.