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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of a part as follows. Thus, this is acceptable pursuant to the main

2. The following shall be added to the 16th 16th 16th son of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the second 17th 17th "(based on recognition)" shall be added to the “this court’s obvious fact.”

“The Network C” (hereinafter referred to as “H”) with G on August 3, 2015.

A) A Party was established. Of H shares 100,00 shares, 9,900 shares of 10,000 shares of H were held by G and 100 shares of Y. The Network C on November 23, 2015 that “5% of H shares 100% shall be distributed to G, 20%, 20% to G, and 5% to K” (hereinafter “instant will”).

E) On December 8, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant will against I, G, J, and K as Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap577205, and subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant will. As seen above, the Defendant added a claim for confirmation of invalidity of the instant will and withdrawn the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the instant will (hereinafter “instant legal reserve lawsuit”).

F. On August 16, 2016, in the instant legal reserve of inheritance, “The Defendant is the 27,500 shares of H; I is the 10,00 shares of H; G and J are the 10,00 shares of the same shares; and K transfers 2,50 shares of the same shares to September 30, 2016 and gives notice of transfer.” As to this, G, J and K did not object to the ruling of recommending settlement; however, I raised an objection to the said ruling of recommending settlement.

G. In the instant legal reserve lawsuit on April 21, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment ordering the Defendant to transfer 27,500 shares of H to the Defendant and to notify the transfer of H shares, as seen above, with regard to I who has raised an objection to the ruling of recommending reconciliation. I also stated that the judgment is i.e., I., the judgment.