1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except where the reasoning for this part is written or added as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third letter of the judgment of the court of first instance, "for the company outside Korea" in the 7th letter of the judgment of the court of first instance, "for the company outside Korea" is "for the company outside Korea", "the defendant" in the 11th letter of the table " for the defendant" and "for the contact" in the 13th letter of the table 13.

The following shall be added between 20 e.g. 3 of the first instance judgment and 21 e.g.:

If the Defendant delays the payment of fees or expenses prescribed in this Article, the damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 17% per annum to the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company. The following shall be added between the fourth five parallels and six parallels in the first instance judgment.

The non-party company at issue expressed to the defendant that the non-party company would no longer perform the advisory contract of this case on February 2018. The non-party company at issue issued an order to no longer perform the advisory contract of this case to "D." of the judgment of the first instance.

The fourth 8 parallel of the judgment of the first instance court shall be comprised of the 8 parallel "Shoju" as "Shoju" (hereinafter referred to as "I.S.").

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the same time, the Plaintiff entered into the instant advisory contract and was designated as an exclusive advisory agency for the Defendant’s financing of funds. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is limited to the Plaintiff’s financial advisory and loan brokerage (hereinafter “loan intermediary business”).

Around October 2017, the detailed financing proposal has already been determined.

At that time, the IF et al. had only approved the instant loan and carried out the loan in accordance with the above financing detailed plan. However, it was revealed that the Defendant was obligated to pay approximately KRW 10 billion more than the amount of debt originally notified to the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company, and accordingly, the Nonparty Company was in charge of the loan intermediary business on the ground of damage to the trust with the Defendant.