The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a partial dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below and an addition as set forth in paragraph (3)

(However, the part concerning the co-defendant B, C, D, and E, which was separated and confirmed, 2.2. Cut or added, shall be the witness of the first instance court, 5.3.

The 11th judgment of the first instance court from 11th to 12th 6th Myeon, “E.” shall be advanced as follows.

“E. The Defendant and the instant company directly evidence that there was an agreement between the Defendant and the instant company on November 16, 2016, as well as the content of the Defendant’s defense, on the grounds of a set-off claim against Defendant F’s claim, such as the agreed amount of compensation for damages, etc., as well as the documents as evidence No. 3-2 (written confirmation, E-2) of the evidence No. 11-2.

(1) is due.

However, even according to the defendant's argument, the above written confirmation is merely merely a photograph taken by the original, not the original, but also can be recognized as having the contents indicated in the above written confirmation because the printing reproduction condition or the storage status is poor, and it is not possible to determine whether the affixed seal is the company's seal, and this court's new document No. 11-2 is somewhat somewhat a printing reproduction status compared to the document No. 3-2. However, the above document's seal affixed thereto cannot be clearly known as the body.

Although the witnessO stated in this Court that the seal affixed to the above written confirmation is the same as the employee identification of the company of this case, the above written confirmation was directly prepared.

A consistent statement is made as to whether or not the employee seal of the company of this case was affixed directly to the above confirmation document with the N's permission or the representative director's seal was not memory.