1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 348,676,33 and KRW 117,90,000 among them.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, and the judgment as to the defendant’s argument added in the trial of the court of first instance as to this case is identical to the part corresponding to the defendant in the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant A’s “Defendant A” and Defendant B’s “Defendant B,” respectively, shall be deemed to be the “Defendant” and “Defendant B,” respectively.

Part 5, Chapters 7 through 9 are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

D. The Defendant occupied and used the instant building for the purpose of a hospital or funeral hall and went to another place on June 19, 2015, which was after the first instance judgment was pronounced.

The following facts and circumstances are as follows: “The Defendant, on June 19, 2015, went to a different place from the instant building, shall be deemed as having completed the delivery of the instant building on June 19, 2015, based on the following facts and circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s statement and image of the evidence Nos. 31 through 33, 35, and 36; and (b) the statement and image of evidence Nos. 12 through 14 (including the serial serial serial number); and (c) the testimony of some witnesses E of the party in the trial; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant completed the delivery of the instant building on June 19, 2015.

Therefore, the plaintiff's request for extradition is without merit.

① On June 13, 2015, the Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff’s employee on June 13, 2015, to the effect that “I wish to send drawings and photographs necessary for the restoration to the original state on the Plaintiff’s part, and is waiting for drawing and photographing the business to terminate and waiting for the restoration to the original state. In the absence of reply, I sent a text message to the effect that I would return the instant building to the original state according to the initial design drawings, and on June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff also sent a text message to the effect that I would return the building to the original state and deliver it to the Defendant.”