1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant C in the judgment is modified as follows.

Defendant C is the Plaintiff 108,345.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and defendant C do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if each evidence submitted in the first instance court was presented to this court, the fact-finding and decision in the first instance court is justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, including the judgment on the claim for offset added by Defendant C in this court, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are partly modified as follows. Defendant C’s claim for return of provisional payment is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the additional determination under the following “paragraph 2”. As such, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420

Attached Form 1 of the fourth 3 written judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as "attached Form 1 of the judgment of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "attached Form 1").

B. The 10th 4th 10th son E in the judgment of the court of first instance is the appraiser E in the court of first instance.

C. The fourth 10-11 of the judgment of the first instance court “this court” is regarded as “court of the first instance.” D. The fourth 11 of the judgment of the first instance is to dismiss “Expert E” as “Expert E”.

E. The 6th half to 18th half of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.

In light of the above legal principles, it is insufficient to conclude that Defendant C is insolvent solely on the basis of the results of an inquiry into the head of Gwangjin-gu in the court of first instance, the results of an order to submit financial transaction information to the head of Gwangjin-gu in the court of first instance, and the results of an order to present financial transaction information to the EA corporation in this court, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (in addition to the whole purport of the arguments in the evidence mentioned above, Gap No. 17 and Eul No. 8 among the instant buildings, Defendant C is the owner of the second underground floor G of the instant building, and there is no limited real right to the said real estate, and the credit rating assessed by the EA corporation as of April 30, 200 is the second class 891, Defendant C is the party who constructed and sold the instant building and the Defendant company.