1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B, based on the claim that the court changed the exchange in this court, shall be the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is as follows. The Plaintiff’s use of, addition to, and deletion from, part of the claim as follows, and the Plaintiff’s use of the part of the claim that the court changed to exchange at this court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for determination as to the claim that the court changed

(except for the part relating to the counterclaim). The third second mark of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be put in as follows.

On January 17, 2017, the amount of the date deposit account (won) was added to D Bank E [Deposit Co., Ltd.: B] 100,000,000,000 D Bank E [Deposit Co., Ltd.: B] 67,965,000 on March 17, 2017 [Deposit Co., Ltd.] 50,000,000 total sum of KRW 217,965,000 on March 17, 2017, following the fourth eight first instance judgment of the first instance judgment of 217,965,000, “the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000 out of the amount of the credit card use on November 7, 2018.”

"A evidence No. 19" is added to the fourth 15-16 of the judgment of the first instance.

Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance shall be cut to 3 pages 19 through 5 as follows.

The Plaintiff loaned KRW 217,965,00 in total, which was remitted to Defendant B in connection with the establishment of the instant store, KRW 10,000 in the Q cards unpaid on behalf of Defendant B, and KRW 8,000 in the delinquent management expenses. Therefore, Defendant B and Defendant C, a joint guarantor, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 182,165,00 in the first instance judgment, which remains after subtracting KRW 5,380,000 in the aggregate of the above amounts paid by Defendant B from KRW 235,965,00, and damages for delay thereof.

The first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s first instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s damages claim against Defendant B (hereinafter “R”)’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment.

2) As well as 96 computers (hereinafter referred to as “instant computers”).

(2) The term “instant lease agreement” (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).