1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s reasoning, except for the parts which are dismissed or added as stated in the second instance court’s decision, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The “Defendant Treatment Industry Development” in Chapter 19 of the Decision of the first instance court in Part II, which is advanced or added, shall be considered as “development of the Plaintiff Treatment Industry”.

Part 5 of the third judgment of the first instance court shall raise "common costs" to "common costs".

The name "A" shall be deleted from the third page 12 of the judgment of the first instance.

On the 8th judgment of the first instance court, the "date of this judgment" in the first instance judgment shall be "date of pronouncement of the first instance judgment".

The defendant's argument that the relationship of actual attribution of common expenses shall be determined is difficult to accept as it is, in addition, according to the following subparagraphs in the 9th sentence and 13th sentence of the first instance court.

When the actual reversion relationship is clear by identifying the actual reversion relationship with respect to common expenses, the defendant's assertion that the actual reversion relationship should be shared according to the actual reversion relationship, and if it is impossible to clearly identify the actual reversion relationship, it is difficult to accept as it is.

Part 3 of the Decision of the first instance shall add to the following:

Since the Defendant agreed to settle common expenses according to the actual reversion relationship in the instant settlement agreement, it argues that the phrase “a consultation and coordination shall be made in accordance with the case.” However, the objective meaning of the phrase that “1/3 shall be shared in principle” is that the instant settlement agreement is an objective method of determining the final method of determination by holding a consultation on the allocation ratio, etc. under the status of disclosure of the existence and amount of money, but it did not reach an agreement, and accordingly, it was agreed to settle the actual reversion relationship.