1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for deletion or modification as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. 삭제변경하는 부분 ◆ 제1심판결 4쪽 마지막행부터 5쪽 2행까지를 삭제 ◆ 제1심판결 8쪽 7행부터 9쪽 11행까지를 삭제하고, 9쪽 12행의 “4) 소결”을 “3) 소결”로 변경 ◆ 제1심판결 9쪽 18행부터 10쪽 7행까지를 다음과 같이 변경 『1) 레미콘대금 대위변제로 인한 구상금 채권 피고는 2013. 9. 17. 원고의 아세아시멘트 주식회사(이하 ‘아세아시멘트’라 한다)에 대한 레미콘대금 채무 46,425,040원을 대신 변제하였다고 주장하고, 이에 대하여 원고는 그 중 34,425,040원 부분은 다투지 아니하나 이를 초과하는 부분은 피고가 개인적으로 사용한 레미콘대금이므로 대위변제로 인정할 수 없다면서 다투고 있다.

The plaintiff's assertion is based on the statement on the amount of ready-mixed supplied as a part of the work log (No. 5-1) and on the date of supply, which is replaced by the statement of the head of the ready-mixed Sales Center (Evidence No. 5-2) issued in the Agri Cement. The above evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by the witness D's testimony, i.e., the defendant was supplied with ready-mixed from the Agri cement for the packing of access roads entering the farm. Nevertheless, the defendant asserted that the above payment goes beyond the above amount is a personal use, and the defendant does not clearly specify the scope of the ordered amount by the defendant's individual, and it is D'D's actual payment of the above payment to the Asi Cement, and whether it paid only the amount calculated after deducting the amount to be borne by the defendant," in the first instance trial.