1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part “4. conclusion”) except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. A modification shall be made to the following 4 to 7 parallels in the 3rd Schedule:

Around March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared the instant detailed statement while settling down the money and goods, etc. received from the Plaintiff according to the completion of the instant collaborative relationship. The Defendant agreed to return KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff as the amount of the cooperative relationship settlement, and acknowledged that the Plaintiff was liable to return KRW 270 million to the Plaintiff at least KRW 270 million. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 300 million or KRW 270 million to the Plaintiff according to the instant written settlement return agreement.” Accordingly, under the fourth below, the Defendant revised the phrase “consigning nine” to the effect that “the Defendant was concluded or the Defendant was liable to return KRW 270 million to the Plaintiff at least.”

6 The 12 parallels “109,022,904 won” shall be amended to “109,02,909 won”.

7 Subsequent to the 5th following the “Influence”, the phrase “A evidence No. 29” was added, and the phrase “in the case of 4th following the same page,” the Prosecutor’s Office subsequently added the Plaintiff’s disposition of forgery of the Plaintiff’s private document and the fact that the use of the document for the investigation was suspected of unconfising evidence,” which read that “the Plaintiff forged two copies of the order in the manner of forging the seal imprint in the column for approval of D issuance as if the Defendant affixed the seal imprint in the form for approval of D issuance.”

11. The following shall be corrected from 11 up to 12 pages:

Of the above specification of transactions between the Plaintiff and H Representative P, the conversation on the part that the Plaintiff transferred the sum of KRW 820,000,000 to H account on July 21, 2017 and KRW 12.6 million on December 22, 2017 (in accordance with the corresponding part of the evidence A No. 9, the above KRW 12.6 million to the Defendant even if based on the corresponding part of the evidence A).