1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount equivalent to the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. Addition of the cause of the claim in this court;

A. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought from Defendant B the settlement amount of KRW 889,61,268 and the delay damages therefrom, and sought against the Defendants for the payment of KRW 55,775,163 and the delay damages therefrom due to deception or embezzlement of business allowances (hereinafter “previous claim”). Then, the Plaintiff sought the sale price of KRW 1,800 and the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 200 as to the attached document 1,80 and the attached document 200. The Plaintiff sought against the Defendants for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 5,461,854,554 and KRW 26,05,00 and KRW 265,55,00 and KRW 265,00 due to deception or embezzlement of the proceeds of sale, and for the Defendants to seek damages equivalent to the sale price due to forgery of the attached document and the sale price due to forgery of the attached document.

(hereinafter “Additional Claim”). However, without modifying the purport of the claim of the main claim pursuant to the Additional Claim, the Plaintiff sought monetary payment as an express partial claim only within the scope of the original claim of the main claim.

B. At the first instance court, Defendant B claimed payment of the settlement amount of KRW 1,693,607,820 for the business profits of charnel houses and the delay damages therefrom (hereinafter “previous counterclaim claim”), Defendant B added the cause of counterclaim claim seeking payment of KRW 1,380,000,000 for the settlement amount of the business profits of a group sold in lots to the court (hereinafter “previous counterclaim claim”).

(hereinafter “Additional Counterclaim Claim”: Provided, however, Defendant B, without modifying the purport of the claim for a counterclaim upon the Additional Counterclaim Claim, also sought monetary payment as an express claim only within the scope of the original claim purport.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s previous principal claim against the Defendants and Defendant B’s previous counterclaim

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this part, is that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “40%” under 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be “60%”, and that “the amount related to the group sale” under 10 below.