1. All appeals filed by the counterclaim Defendant and incidental appeals filed by the counterclaim Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The appeal shall be made by an incidental appeal; and

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the judgment on the assertion that the counterclaim and the counterclaim Defendant specifically emphasized as the grounds for incidental appeal or appeal is added to Paragraph 2, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of Codefendant B, D, and E in the first instance judgment (excluding the part on the claim of the counterclaim Defendant that was terminated by withdrawal of the lawsuit and the part on the claim of the counterclaim Codefendant B, D, and E, which became final and conclusive separately from the part on the main claim of the counterclaim Defendant that was concluded by withdrawal

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal by the counterclaim Defendant

A. The gist of the allegation is as follows: (a) from February 19, 2016, the counterclaim Defendant.

4. By up to 16. G paid a total of KRW 62,50,000 to G three occasions, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 10,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff for rent, such as digging machines.

Nevertheless, the first instance judgment rejected the counterclaim Defendant’s repayment defense, and accepted the rent of KRW 10,00,000, such as digging machines, among the counterclaim Defendant’s claims, it was unlawful.

B. A concrete review 1) However, even if the evidence additionally examined by the first instance court was presented by this court, it is just to acknowledge and determine the facts of the first instance court that the counterclaim Defendant paid G a fee of KRW 62,50,000,000,000 including 10,000,000,000,000 won, or G was not entitled to receive the money related to the instant construction on behalf of the counterclaim, and there is no error as alleged by the counterclaim Defendant as the grounds for appeal. Therefore, the above argument by the counterclaim Defendant is not acceptable. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the first instance court by the counterclaim Defendant to the first instance court, and the evidence of KRW 11-10,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was additionally submitted by the counterclaim Defendant to G on February 19, 2016, and KRW 15,500,000,00.

3. 30.30 million won;

4. It is nothing more than the purport that the payment of KRW 62,50,000,000 (= KRW 15,000,000) was made on June 16, 196, and KRW 17,50,000,00,000), and among them, the excavation season, etc. is included.